From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3531BC6B for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:20:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.5]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l1MHJwXN012124 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:20:00 +0100 Received: (qmail 5672 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2007 17:19:57 -0000 Received: from shell2.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.116.3]) (envelope-sender ) by mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 22 Feb 2007 17:19:57 -0000 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:19:57 -0800 (PST) From: brogoff To: Till Varoquaux Cc: David Teller , OCaml Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Feature request : Tuples vs. records In-Reply-To: <9d3ec8300702220857u15e73d6eq8f48066e1a307626@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <45DD6F8C.7080508@ens-lyon.org> <45DD73A8.3040703@fmf.uni-lj.si> <1172148077.5345.18.camel@rosella.wigram> <45DDB697.6080004@ps.uni-sb.de> <9d3ec8300702220757s5c75c7feqee62f051841d1c38@mail.gmail.com> <45DDC424.2020804@ens-lyon.org> <9d3ec8300702220857u15e73d6eq8f48066e1a307626@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 45DDD0BE.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ens-lyon:01 recursion:01 recursive:01 ocaml:01 2007,:98 1089:98 cvs:01 polymorphic:01 polymorphic:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 caml-list:01 functions:01 speakeasy:01 On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Till Varoquaux wrote: > On 2/22/07, David Teller wrote: > > Sounds interesting. Do you have documentation on this use of records for > > general recursivity ? For polymorphic recursion, how about this? http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml-list/2002/08/9e1089a04ce714a0541373be008c3130.en.html And, since I brought it up, I noticed in the CVS that someone wrote the test for directly expressing polymorphic recursive functions in OCaml. Any chance we'll see that in the future? -- Brian