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 CAA29827; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 02:22:36 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA29823 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 02:22:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from opus.cs.cornell.edu (exchange.cs.cornell.edu [128.84.97.8]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f380MYj08499 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 02:22:34 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by opus.cs.cornell.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <2HK0GV11>; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 20:22:34 -0400 Message-ID: <706871B20764CD449DB0E8E3D81C4D43016049F4@opus.cs.cornell.edu> From: jgm@cs.cornell.edu To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: RE: [Caml-list] variant with tuple arg in pattern match? Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 20:22:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > Type-based compilation strategies such as TAL and FLINT can deal with > this issue, but at considerable cost in complexity of the compiler and > execution speed. Er, you mean TIL :-) TAL doesn't care which one you choose. > Frankly, I think there is no point in maintaining the illusion that > datatype constructors are either nullary (constant) or unary. The > only efficient implementation model is N-ary constructors, so let's > reflect this in the language. I agree. Besides, if you're going to go the uniform route, why not have all constructors be unary? This always annoyed me in SML. > I agree that in an ideal world the syntax of the declaration should > make this more explicit, e.g. the CamlP4 way ("Foo of int and int" > vs. "Foo of int * int"). The current "syntactic overloading" of "*" > in constructor declarations is sometimes misleading, but did make the > conversion from Caml V3.1 code convenient a long, long time ago... What's wrong with "Foo of int,int" or "Foo of (int,int)"? JGM ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr