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 QAA10956; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 16:15:22 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA10921 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 16:15:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from aomori.annexia.org (annexia.force9.co.uk [212.56.101.183]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i37EFKYM031553 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 16:15:20 +0200 Received: from rich by aomori.annexia.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1BBDpn-0001ja-00 for ; Wed, 07 Apr 2004 15:15:19 +0100 Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 15:15:19 +0100 Cc: caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Function forward declaration? Message-ID: <20040407141519.GA6618@redhat.com> References: <60532B15DF92FD4693AA89B2F7E01D8F013F29EC@tmex02> <00cf01c41bd6$391b53a0$0203a8c0@hoedic> <20040406175320.GA19840@redhat.com> <1081279717.16531.6.camel@qrnik> <002901c41c65$b53e4c50$19b0e152@warp> <1081345936.19232.579.camel@pelican> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1081345936.19232.579.camel@pelican> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i From: Richard Jones X-Miltered: at concorde by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 2004:99 'return':99 crm:99 consultancy:99 ltd:98 compiler:01 compiler:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 imho:01 wrote:03 hack:03 variable:03 viewpoint:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 90 On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 11:52:17PM +1000, skaller wrote: > IMHO it isn't forward calling that is broken, > but global variables. A somewhat controversial viewpoint ... While minimising the use of global variables might be a theoretical desirable goal, they are very useful when you're actually writing real programs under the schedule pressure for real users.. > > and this can be checked by the compiler. > > How? *** > > What do you suggest if the compiler > is not sure if a variable is initialised or not? > Java bans, Felix allows, Ocaml forces the programmer > to hack. The trouble seems to be that I have a perfectly practical and reasonable desire to see prototypes added to the language, because, believe it or now, it helps to solve some problems in the Real World. Now if there's some deep reason why it's actually impossible I would understand, but plenty of other languages (eg. C) seem to have prototypes and they get along just fine. (Same, by the way, goes for a 'return' statement which OCaml is crying out for). Rich. -- Richard Jones. http://www.annexia.org/ http://www.j-london.com/ Merjis Ltd. http://www.merjis.com/ - improving website return on investment http://www.winwinsales.co.uk/ - CRM improvement consultancy ------------------- 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