From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id UAA27002; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:37:14 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA27509 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:37:12 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail5.tpgi.com.au (mail.tpgi.com.au [203.12.160.100]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id i0TJbAv07504 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:37:11 +0100 (MET) Received: from 203-219-225-179-syd-ts24-2600.tpgi.com.au (203-219-225-179-syd-ts24-2600.tpgi.com.au [203.219.225.179]) by mail5.tpgi.com.au (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0TJal3S019470; Fri, 30 Jan 2004 06:36:49 +1100 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml and concurrency From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@tpg.com.au To: Martin Berger Cc: Andreas Rossberg , The Trade In-Reply-To: <40194644.9060308@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> References: <20040127063230.GA12482@inv_machine> <200401282326.i0SNQntl004612@bismarck-chet.watson.ibm.com> <97908806-5238-11D8-8975-000393B8133A@wetware.com> <4018E282.2040404@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> <401930C6.8060907@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> <40193B59.9050700@ps.uni-sb.de> <40194644.9060308@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1075405078.3632.106.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 30 Jan 2004 06:37:59 +1100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TPG-Antivirus: Passed X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 tpg:99 2004:99 closures:01 closures:01 java's:01 ocaml's:01 theorist:01 lexically:01 pointers:01 tpg:99 glebe:01 2037,:01 9660:01 unsafe:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 04:43, Martin Berger wrote: > > And even more so due to the lack of real closures, > > wouldn't you say that the lack of real closures is a consequence > of java's lack of a proper function space arrow, rather than a > separate issue? i don't see how you could have ocaml's full ---> > without real closures, but maybe i'm missing something. Perhaps because you're a type theorist? C not only *does* have function types, it has first class function values just like ML does. The two differences are: functions can't be lexically scoped (so all the closures are trivial) and there's no garbage collector (so pointers to automatic variables are unsafe). -- John Max Skaller, mailto:skaller@tpg.com.au snail:25/85c Wigram Rd, Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia. voice:61-2-9660-0850. Checkout Felix: http://felix.sf.net ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners