On понедельник, 19 сентября 2016 г. 10:46:22 MSK Markus Mottl wrote:

> Thanks, Mikhail, that's the correct way to solve this problem from a

> typing perspective. Sadly, this encoding using a separate GADT

> containing a "Link" tag defeats the purpose of the idea, which was to

> save indirections and the associated memory overhead. I wish it was

> possible to introduce existentially quantified variables within

> records without having to go through another GADT.

 

In fact the purpose of GPR#606 (https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/606) is to avoid the indirection e.g.

type t = A of string [@@unboxed]

let x = A "toto"

assert (Obj.repr x == Obj.repr (match x with A s -> s))

It is also said in the comment that:

 

This is useful (for example):

 

--...

-- when using a single-constructor, single-field GADT to introduce an existential type

 

This is merged into trunk and should appear in 4.04.0: (from CHANGES)

- GPR#606: optimized representation for immutable records with a single

field, and concrete types with a single constructor with a single argument.

This is triggered with a [@@unboxed] attribute on the type definition.

(Damien Doligez)

 

Regards, Mikhail

 

>

> Regards,

> Markus

>

> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Mikhail Mandrykin <mandrykin@ispras.ru> wrote:

> > Hello,

> >

> > On понедельник, 19 сентября 2016 г. 10:58:29 MSK you wrote:

> >> Hi Markus,

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> Therefore, these fields are neither readable nor writable directly. A

> >>

> >> direct manifestation of the problem is that, as you observed, you cannot

> >>

> >> assign new values to either prev or next without use of `Obj.magic`. For

> >>

> >> instance,

> >

> > As far as I know quite common approach in this case is introduction of

> > one-constructor wrapper types to hide the existential variable and allow

> > mutability e.g.

> >

> >

> >

> > type ('el, _) t =

> >

> > | Empty : ('el, [ `empty ]) t

> > |

> > | Elt : {

> >

> > mutable prev : 'el link;

> >

> > el : 'el;

> >

> > mutable next : 'el link;

> >

> > } -> ('el, [ `elt ]) t

> >

> > and 'el link = Link : ('el, _) t -> 'el link;;

> >

> >

> >

> > So the link type wraps the type parameter of the next element and thus

> > allows safe mutation, otherwise it's only possible to update the field

> > with

> > the element of exactly same type that doesn't allow e.g. deleting an

> > element at the end of the list without reallocating the corresponding

> > record of the previous element (and if one decides to keep more precise

> > information e.g. about the number of elements, the whole list needs to be

> > re-allocated). With the link wrapper as above it's possible to define

> > add, remove and also a get operation without and extra pattern matching:

> >

> >

> >

> > let add : type a. _ -> (_, a) t -> (_, [`elt]) t = fun el ->

> >

> > function

> >

> > | Empty -> Elt { el; prev = Link Empty; next = Link Empty }

> > |

> > | Elt _ as n -> Elt { el; prev = Link Empty; next = Link n };;

> >

> > let remove : type a. ('el, a) t -> 'el link =

> >

> > function

> >

> > | Empty -> Link Empty

> > |

> > | Elt { prev = Link p as prev; next = Link n as next} ->

> >

> > (match p with Empty -> () | Elt p -> p.next <- next);

> >

> > (match n with Empty -> () | Elt n -> n.prev <- prev);

> >

> > next;;

> >

> >

> >

> > let get : (_, [`elt]) t -> _ = function Elt { el; _ } -> el

> >

> >

> >

> > Also note the GPR#606(https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/606 ) that

> > should

> > allow constructing and deconstructing links (Link l) without overhead.

> >

> >

> >

> > Regards, Mikhail

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > --

> >

> > Mikhail Mandrykin

> >

> > Linux Verification Center, ISPRAS

> >

> > web: http://linuxtesting.org

> >

> > e-mail: mandrykin@ispras.ru

 

 

--

Mikhail Mandrykin

Linux Verification Center, ISPRAS

web: http://linuxtesting.org

e-mail: mandrykin@ispras.ru