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 HAA24982; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 07:25:59 +0100 (MET) 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 HAA25025 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 07:25:58 +0100 (MET) Received: from d12lmsgate.de.ibm.com (d12lmsgate.de.ibm.com [195.212.91.199]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id fBA6OZT01589 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 07:25:19 +0100 (MET) Received: from d12relay02.de.ibm.com (d12relay02.de.ibm.com [9.165.215.23]) by d12lmsgate.de.ibm.com (1.0.0) with ESMTP id QAA99126 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 16:43:24 +0100 Received: from d10hubm1.telaviv.ibm.com (d10ml001.telaviv.ibm.com [9.148.216.55]) by d12relay02.de.ibm.com (8.11.1m3/NCO v5.01) with ESMTP id fB9FhoL154104 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 16:43:50 +0100 Importance: Normal Subject: [Caml-list] mutability analysis too strict? To: caml-list@inria.fr X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.7 March 21, 2001 Message-ID: From: "Ohad Rodeh" Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 17:43:41 +0200 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D10ML001/10/M/IBM(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 09/12/2001 17:43:44 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk List, I have a problem with hashtable mutability analysis. For example: let h = Hashtbl.create 10;; h : ('_a, '_b) Hashtbl.t The objects and keys in the table are infered to be mutable. However, in my case, they are immutable and I have to coerce them using Obj.magic from '_b to 'b. Can this be fixed? why is the analysis so restrictive? Ohad. ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr