From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p83BkOr5026686 for ; Sat, 3 Sep 2011 13:46:24 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AioCAJwSYk5V2gB5hWdsb2JhbABCqQABAQEKCwsbJoFGAQEFRyQOEAtGFCghiAgCqFiNew6FfGAEpD0 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,324,1312149600"; d="scan'208";a="107574426" Received: from emailfrontal2.citycable.ch ([85.218.0.121]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with SMTP; 03 Sep 2011 13:46:19 +0200 X-Alinto-smtpauth-localdomain: Yes Received: from seldon (unknown [85.218.93.239]) (Authenticated sender: guillaume.yziquel@citycable.ch) by emailfrontal2.citycable.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9D46420C15D; Sat, 3 Sep 2011 13:46:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from yziquel by seldon with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QzogB-0004vi-Pu; Sat, 03 Sep 2011 13:46:31 +0200 Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 13:46:26 +0200 From: Guillaume Yziquel To: Philippe Veber Cc: Goswin von Brederlow , caml-list@inria.fr Message-ID: <20110903114625.GA15100@localhost> References: <87ty8uc5ph.fsf@frosties.localnet> <20110903103653.GX15100@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by walapai.inria.fr id p83BkOr5026686 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Odd failure to infer types Le Saturday 03 Sep 2011 à 13:35:22 (+0200), Philippe Veber a écrit : > Hi, I'm really no typing expert and have not looked much into your > code, so sorry in advance if what I say is irrelevant. Christophe got > it right I think : I'd say that an array value cannot be polymorphic > because it is mutable. I've quickly searched the web and found that > [1]http://mirror.ocamlcore.org/caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml-list/ > 2001/12/0dccd30f4582e551a674562e3ddcc03c.en.html Yes, Christophe got it right. While not having the let-restriction on [] seems right theoretically, I see little practical use case for it however. -- Guillaume Yziquel