From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7E66BB84 for ; Sat, 20 May 2006 23:11:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k4KLBDSi003143 for ; Sat, 20 May 2006 23:11:13 +0200 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 XAA13542 for ; Sat, 20 May 2006 23:11:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de (einhorn.in-berlin.de [192.109.42.8]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k4KLBBLe003137 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 20 May 2006 23:11:12 +0200 X-Envelope-From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de X-Envelope-To: Received: from first.in-berlin.de (e178011229.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.11.229]) (authenticated bits=0) by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Debian-1) with ESMTP id k4KLBA0u014334 for ; Sat, 20 May 2006 23:11:11 +0200 Received: by first.in-berlin.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id 858FB28814D; Sat, 20 May 2006 23:11:17 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 23:11:17 +0200 From: Oliver Bandel To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: immutable strings (Re: [Caml-list] Array 4 MB size limit) Message-ID: <20060520211117.GA2670@first.in-berlin.de> References: <20060515141230.ajyupn2z28k0484s@horde.akalin.cx> <446D5E4A.8060005@akalin.cx> <20060519162844.GA32550@osiris.uid0.sk> <200605192226.34917.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang_at_IN-Berlin_e.V. on 192.109.42.8 X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 446F85F1.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 446F85EF.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; bandel:01 in-berlin:01 ocaml's:01 arrays:01 arrays:01 ocaml:01 mutable:01 2006:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 char:01 imho:01 oliver:01 oliver:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 09:06:27PM -0400, Brian Hurt wrote: > > > On Fri, 19 May 2006, Jon Harrop wrote: > > >Agreed. Should OCaml's successor have extensible arrays with 64-bit lengths > >and strings as char arrays? > > Why not just run Ocaml as a 64-bit app on a 64-bit OS? > > We I designing a language today, I'd have 63-bit array lengths- of course, > I'd do it by not bothering to support 32-bit systems... > > As for strings, I'd be inclined to make them immutable- the correct way to > manipulate strings is with regular expressions. But I'm widely > acknowledged to be an extremist. IMHO strings should be possibly made immutable by using the "immutable" keyword, which is the opposite of the "mutable" keyword as it is used for records. So the user/programmer can chose the kind of strings he7she wants. Ciao, Oliver