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 HAA17411; Mon, 2 Aug 2004 07:07:08 +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 HAA17084 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 2004 07:07:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail4.speakeasy.net (mail4.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.204]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i72575SH023194 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 2004 07:07:05 +0200 Received: (qmail 12365 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2004 05:07:04 -0000 Received: from shell2.speakeasy.net ([69.17.110.71]) (envelope-sender ) by mail4.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 2 Aug 2004 05:07:04 -0000 Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 22:07:04 -0700 (PDT) From: brogoff To: skaller cc: Jon Harrop , caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Functional arrays In-Reply-To: <1091299557.11540.405.camel@pelican.wigram> Message-ID: References: <410B5EBD.6060800@cgorski.org> <200407311444.56864.jon@jdh30.plus.com> <1091291731.11540.368.camel@pelican.wigram> <200407311823.40820.jon@jdh30.plus.com> <1091299557.11540.405.camel@pelican.wigram> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 410DCBF9.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; brogoff:01 brogoff:01 caml-list:01 2004:99 2004:99 44,:01 covariant:01 bug:01 jacques:01 arrays:01 arrays:01 speakeasy:01 garrigue:01 wrote:03 wrote:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Sat, 1 Aug 2004, skaller wrote: > On Sun, 2004-08-01 at 03:23, Jon Harrop wrote: > > On Saturday 31 July 2004 17:35, skaller wrote: > > > On Sat, 2004-07-31 at 23:44, Jon Harrop wrote: > > > > Incidentally, does anyone have a functional array implementation (which > > > > doesn't suck ;-)? > > > > > > Map? > > > > Well, by "array" I mean a container with O(1) random access where "n" is the > > number of elements already in the container. ;-) > > > Anyway, I'm considering implementing arrays which look functional but which > > use built-in arrays and keep track of "derived" arrays (e.g. subarrays) One problem with even the simple minded solution of a type of array without set is that it isn't a covariant container, like a list, and you can't make it one, even though that should be allowed. That may not bug you, but it was an annoyance for me when I discovered this. Jacques Garrigue said it was probably too much work to fix that. Any functional array you build on top of arrays gets bit by this. -- Brian ------------------- 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