From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F57BC6B for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 16:45:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.140]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l74EjYoX020709 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 16:45:35 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAJ4stEZ5LGJp/2dsb2JhbAAN X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.19,220,1183300200"; d="scan'208";a="167073408" Received: from ppp121-44-98-105.lns10.syd6.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.201]) ([121.44.98.105]) by ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 05 Aug 2007 00:15:33 +0930 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Sorted list From: skaller To: Philippe Wang Cc: tmp123@menta.net, ocaml ml In-Reply-To: <46B486C6.2060105@philippewang.info> References: <46B4485B.7040406@menta.net> <46B454ED.700@philippewang.info> <1186226538.14440.105.camel@rosella.wigram> <46B46FB3.3090606@philippewang.info> <1186234786.32211.7.camel@rosella.wigram> <46B486C6.2060105@philippewang.info> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 00:45:32 +1000 Message-Id: <1186238732.1032.5.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 46B4910E.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; 0200,:01 mandates:01 ocaml:01 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 constraint:01 manual:06 weak:06 efficient:07 john:08 felix:09 felix:09 philippe:11 On Sat, 2007-08-04 at 16:01 +0200, Philippe Wang wrote: > skaller wrote: > > > >> It works ! ... Or did I miss something ? > >> > > > > Yes. Read the manual: the ordered type mandates a total order. > > > > Just because the Ocaml type system is too weak too represent this > > constraint does not remove your obligation to meet it. > > > > Whether or not it happens to work with the current implementation > > isn't relevant. > > > > > > Ok... > Still, using the current implementation (even if it means making a > copy!) should be an efficient solution! You don't know it works, just because 3 lines of tests worked. -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net