From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35901BB84 for ; Sat, 20 May 2006 03:05:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from luna.vie.lunde.net (at.lunde.net [62.116.13.60]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k4K15hRH006832 for ; Sat, 20 May 2006 03:05:43 +0200 Received: from h-68-166-100-33.nycmny83.covad.net ([68.166.100.33] helo=localhost.localdomain) by luna.vie.lunde.net with asmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1FhFuX-00033x-00; Sat, 20 May 2006 03:05:41 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67B901013E; Fri, 19 May 2006 21:06:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 21:06:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Hurt X-X-Sender: bhurt@localhost.localdomain To: Jon Harrop Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Array 4 MB size limit In-Reply-To: <200605192226.34917.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Message-ID: References: <20060515141230.ajyupn2z28k0484s@horde.akalin.cx> <446D5E4A.8060005@akalin.cx> <20060519162844.GA32550@osiris.uid0.sk> <200605192226.34917.jon@ffconsultancy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 446E6B67.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml's:01 arrays:01 arrays:01 ocaml:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 char:01 extensible:01 strings:01 strings:01 acknowledged:03 manipulate:03 expressions:04 brian:04 brian:04 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Fri, 19 May 2006, Jon Harrop wrote: > Agreed. Should OCaml's successor have extensible arrays with 64-bit lengths > and strings as char arrays? Why not just run Ocaml as a 64-bit app on a 64-bit OS? We I designing a language today, I'd have 63-bit array lengths- of course, I'd do it by not bothering to support 32-bit systems... As for strings, I'd be inclined to make them immutable- the correct way to manipulate strings is with regular expressions. But I'm widely acknowledged to be an extremist. Brian