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 EAA10342; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 04:34:31 +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 EAA10353 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 04:34:30 +0100 (MET) Received: from smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.203]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2M3Z0KW005675 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 04:35:01 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp114-118.lns1.syd3.internode.on.net [150.101.114.118]) by smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i2M3YDUK080069; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:04:13 +1030 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] extensible records again From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: Michael Vanier Cc: skaller@users.sourceforge.net, oleg_trott@columbia.edu, caml-list In-Reply-To: <20040321223556.8023C9BBA2@orchestra.cs.caltech.edu> References: <20040321062143.BE7D29BBA2@orchestra.cs.caltech.edu> <405D4D77.2030403@columbia.edu> <20040321084008.429279BBA2@orchestra.cs.caltech.edu> <405DBE78.5020609@columbia.edu> <1079888775.3165.11.camel@pelican.wigram> <20040321223556.8023C9BBA2@orchestra.cs.caltech.edu> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1079926749.3165.58.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 22 Mar 2004 14:39:09 +1100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 extensible:01 sourceforge:01 2004:99 vanier:01 vyper:01 sourceforge:01 extensible:01 9660:01 glebe:01 variants:01 variants:01 nsw:01 polymorphic:01 snail:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 294 On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 09:35, Michael Vanier wrote: > Is the code for Vyper still available? No, it was deleted from Sourceforge and I have no copy. > Also, is there really any significant speed difference between polymorphic > variants and regular variants? It is hard to say, but I would tend to ignore the performance issue, at least at first. For some types such as: 'a option where you have a match x with Some y -> ... | None inside a tight loop there may be a small difference. I haven't done any serious performance tests though. > How would this compare to using exceptions > as an extensible variant type? I thought exceptions were just a weak form of polymorhic variant. -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language 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