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 NAA11243; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 13:19:23 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 NAA11179 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 13:19:22 +0200 (MET DST) X-SPAM-Warning: Sending machine is listed in blackholes.five-ten-sg.com Received: from mel-rto1.wanadoo.fr (smtp-out-1.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.188]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g31BJLf19957 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 13:19:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mel-rta3.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.153) by mel-rto1.wanadoo.fr; 1 Apr 2002 13:15:42 +0200 Received: from debian (80.8.77.72) by mel-rta3.wanadoo.fr; 1 Apr 2002 13:15:10 +0200 Received: from moi by debian with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 16ryr1-0000Up-00 for ; Mon, 01 Apr 2002 12:15:59 +0200 To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] initializers and destructor References: <20020331210924.GA11224@cs.unibo.it> <87n0wo5sak.dlv@wanadoo.fr> <20020401074522.GA30409@cs.unibo.it> From: Remi VANICAT Date: 01 Apr 2002 12:15:58 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20020401074522.GA30409@cs.unibo.it> Message-ID: <87it7blo69.dlv@wanadoo.fr> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Stefano Zacchiroli writes: > On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 11:41:23PM +0200, Remi VANICAT wrote: > > there is the finalise function in the module Gc of the standard > > library. > > Thanks, this is ok for me. > > Anyway you probably agree with me that this kind of destructor are a bit > tricky: what about adding some syntactic sugar to hide the Gc usage to > who wants to use destructors? In that way we can also avoid the problem > of wrong usage of "finalise" using let binding correctly. > > What do you think about it? In fact, it should be more than syntactic sugar, because of the pitfall of finalise. So may be it would be useful, but there is a lot of work for it. -- Rémi Vanicat vanicat@labri.u-bordeaux.fr http://dept-info.labri.u-bordeaux.fr/~vanicat ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners