From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BF55BB81 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:04:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp6.wanadoo.fr (smtp6.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.25]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k1NN49uP026082 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:04:10 +0100 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf0602.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id CD66E1C00099 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:04:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from nono (ARouen-106-1-3-31.w80-11.abo.wanadoo.fr [80.11.87.31]) by mwinf0602.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP id 731681C00093; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:04:09 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20060223230409471.731681C00093@mwinf0602.wanadoo.fr Message-ID: <013501c638cd$f647f580$1f570b50@mshome.net> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric_Gava?= To: "Brian Hurt" Cc: References: <006101c6389e$9bbbc440$1f570b50@mshome.net> <20060223183306.GA17390@localhost> <009b01c638ac$6a57b0e0$1f570b50@mshome.net> <00e301c638c0$5368ef20$1f570b50@mshome.net> <012001c638c8$b10139a0$1f570b50@mshome.net> Subject: Re: [Caml-list] (int * int) <> int*int ? Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:07:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 43FE3F69.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; gava:01 gava:01 caml-list:01 constructors:01 transforming:01 12.:98 work-:98 int:01 int:01 seems:03 frederic:03 let:03 let:03 hack:04 problem:05 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 >I understand you're arguing that type constructors should work the same way. It is just i think: the difference with int*int and (int*int) seems (to me) a hack (but i am peraps an extremist ;-) ) >Well, maybe they should have. I also do not know. Peraps another solution would be that #type t= A of int*int #let a=(1,2) in (A a) works by automatically transforming "a": tag*(int*int) to tag*int*int...but peraps it is too hard for just some little cases and it takes many memory for the copy (ok, I can write let (a1,a2)=(1,2) in (A (a1,a2)) but it takes much times...;-) ) >I'm not sure I'd like it if that was changed now, however. Working code wouldn't cease to work- it'd just be >less memory efficient. But you'd always have the extra reference, even if >you didn't need it. I understand your problem and i have no good solution :-( Good night ! FG