Re: [Caml-list] Can this be inlined?

[Michael Ekstrand <michael@elehack.net>]

On 01/10/2011 03:22 PM, Jacques Carette wrote:
> let rec trav f = function
>   | A -> A
>   | B (x,e) -> B (oapply f.a x, trav f e)
>   | C (x,e) -> C (oapply f.b x, trav f e)
>
> let t1 = {a=Some id; b=None}
>
> let tt x = trav t1 x
>
> I would like for 'tt' to contain a version of trav with no traces of
> either oapply or t1 left.  How can I achieve that?  Is it possible?  I
> don't mind changing idioms (modules instead of record, etc), as long
> as I can get my inlining to go through.  [I also tried making oapply
> and trav "local" to tt's definition, but that did not seem to make
> much of a difference].
>
> In any case, the real goal here is to see if I can safely adopt a
> coding style like this, or do I need to manually do all the inlining
> myself?

I think that the problem is in the definition of 'trav' - it is both
recursive and allocates memory.  AFAIK, the OCaml compiler (at least the
native code one) does not inline functions that are either recursive or
allocate memory.  So I think your only option - unless trav can be
drastically rewritten - is to inline them yourself.

- Michael