From: Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr>
Message-Id: <199701301029.LAA25915@pauillac.inria.fr>
Subject: Re: Constructors in camllight vs. ocaml
In-Reply-To: <v01530500af093c3eab44@[10.0.2.15]> from Simon Clematide at "Jan 20, 97 04:31:29 pm"
To: sclematide@access.ch (Simon Clematide)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 11:29:01 +0100 (MET)
> Why do camllight and ocaml treat constructors differently?
>
> In camllight I can write
> #type ip = Pair of int * int;;
> Type ip defined.
> and the system recognizes Pair automatically as a value
> #Pair;;
> - : int * int -> ip = <fun>
>
> Doing the same in ocaml (1.03) I get:
> # type ip = Pair of int * int;;
> type ip = Pair of int * int
> # Pair;;
> The constructor Pair expects 2 argument(s),
> but is here applied to 0 argument(s)
>
> I do prefer the behavior of camllight especially for porting SML code.
The basic reason is the module system, but let me elaborate.
For reasonable performance, a datatype definition such as
type ip = Pair of int * int
must not represent values of type ip literally, i.e. as a block tagged
"Pair" pointing to a two-field block representing a pair of integers.
It is crucial performance-wise to fold the two blocks into one block
tagged "Pair" holding the two integers. Pretty much all ML compilers
do this.
Without modules, the compiler can still maintain the illusion that
Pair is really a one-argument constructor containing a pair, and not a
two-argument constructor. Accesses such as
match x with Pair p -> p
are not terribly efficient (the pair is actually reconstructed on the
right-hand side in Caml Light), but they work.
The big problem is with modules and data abstraction. Namely, should
we allow the following structure
struct type p = int * int
type ip = Pair of int * int
...
end
to match the following signature
sig type p
type ip = Pair of p
end
If you believe the SML/Camllight illusion that constructors have 0 or
1 argument, then the answer should be "yes". However, this causes no
end of trouble in a compiler, because code typechecked against the
signature above assumes that values of type ip are one-field blocks
pointing to a value of type p, while code internal to the structure
assumes two-field blocks from which values of type p must be
reconstructed.
This problem has plagued the SML/NJ implementation for quite a while,
and the solutions that have been proposed are all extremely
heavy-weight.
I think it's not worth the effort to maintain the illusion that
constructors have 0 or 1 argument. Let's just face the truth and
consider them as N-ary, as in Prolog.
Incidentally, if you *really* need a constructor with one argument
that is a pair, you can always declare it as
type p = int * int
type ip = Pair of p
This will direct the OCaml compiler to use the proper representation for a
one-argument constructor. Of course, that representation will occupy
twice as much space as that of "type ip = Pair of int * int", and be
twice as slow to access.
Regards,
- Xavier Leroy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 02 2000 - 11:58:09 MET