Message-Id: <9601090934.AA21977@waves.labri.u-bordeaux.fr>
From: Andrew Conway <arc@labri.u-bordeaux.fr>
To: caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Subject: Re: modules local to functions.
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 09 Jan 1996 09:04:10 +0100."
<9601090804.AA08645@gr6.u-strasbg.fr>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 1996 10:34:00 +0100
I wrote:
> > However, there are cases when I want to define a module in the middle
> > of a function (eg a functor of packed binary arrays where I want to (...)
Christian Boos commented:
>I have encountered a similar problem yesterday!
>My understanding is that YOU CAN'T do that in CSL at all: functor
>application means code generation, and there's no runtime code
>generation!
Ah. I expected (though I hadn't looked into the code at all) that
a run time structure creation (eg struct let n = variable end) was
very similar to the creation of a tuple/normal structure, just requiring
sticking some values into a block of memory. I then expected that a
module creation from a functor was very similar to a partial function
application, (with perhaps a bit of execution) and could thus be done
at run time (as distinct from, say C++ templates which produce specialised
code for each application).
But it may well be significantly more complex than that.
> One can get around the problem by defining n as a function or reference
> and changing it dynamically.
Ugh! I hadn't thought of that, and it is a good idea even if just
a little inelegant. Unfortunately it is not appropriate in my case as
I have several values in the structure which get defined when the module
is created and which depend on n...ie:
module Makespecific(N:Specifyn) = struct
type mytype = int
let computednumber = complexfunction N.n
let mirror () : mytype = computednumber
end
and I only want to call complexfunction once for each module instantiation.
Of course, I could make "computednumber" a reference, and I could have
a function "change_n_and_recompute_everything", but again it is an inelegant
solution that is hard to understand, and I end up with "!"s all over the
code for no algorithmically justifyable reason.
Yeah yeah, I know I am being picky...
Thanks,
Andrew.