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 UAA28238; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 20:04:02 +0200 (MET DST) 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 UAA27265 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 20:04:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from calmail-cr.berkeley.edu (mailfarm.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.61.106]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i37I4pjq007648 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 20:04:52 +0200 Received: from [64.162.212.212] (HELO tallman.kefka.frap.net) by calmail-cr.berkeley.edu (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with SMTP id 12852170 for caml-list@inria.fr; Wed, 07 Apr 2004 11:03:57 -0700 Received: by tallman.kefka.frap.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 7 Apr 2004 11:03:23 -0700 Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 11:03:23 -0700 From: Kenneth Knowles To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Function forward declaration? Message-ID: <20040407180323.GA5854@tallman.kefka.frap.net> 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> <20040407141519.GA6618@redhat.com> <20040407172648.GA12511@bourg.inria.fr> <1081359979.20356.37.camel@qrnik> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1081359979.20356.37.camel@qrnik> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i 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; knowles:99 caml-list:01 2004:99 marcin:01 'qrczak':01 kowalczyk:01 analogous:01 dereference:01 bindings:01 ocaml:01 mutable:01 mutable:01 imho:01 0200,:01 syntax:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 103 On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 07:46:20PM +0200, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote: > IMHO it would be nice if OCaml had mutable bindings, using the syntax > analogous to mutable record fields. That's funny because I kind of feel that mutable fields are a bit of a language hiccup for performance (I assume it is to save one pointer dereference from using a reference). Explicit references are a major strength of O'Caml, emphasizing non-imperative style. ------------------- 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