From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id q3CKVoHH029741
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 22:31:50 +0200
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArQBAPg6h0+DbwiXmGdsb2JhbABFuXYiAQEBAQEICQ0HFCeCCgEFOEEQAQpGVwaIIQSxC4kJkX4Em16NLA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,413,1330902000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="140047629"
Received: from ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.151])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 12 Apr 2012 22:31:45 +0200
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:59201)
	by ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.158]:25)
	with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:lpw25) id 1SIQgC-00071R-Xh (Exim 4.72)
	(return-path <lpw25@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:31:44 +0100
Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk)
	with local (PRAYER:lpw25) id 1SIQgC-0001Yx-DE (Exim 4.67)
	(return-path <lpw25@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:31:44 +0100
Received: from [86.26.0.34] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk
	with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.4); 12 Apr 2012 21:31:44 +0100
Date: 12 Apr 2012 21:31:44 +0100
From: Leo P White <lpw25@cam.ac.uk>
To: Alain Frisch <alain@frisch.fr>
Cc: Gabriel Scherer <gabriel.scherer@gmail.com>, caml <caml-list@inria.fr>
Message-ID: <Prayer.1.3.4.1204122131440.27529@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4F870F05.5010903@frisch.fr>
References: <Prayer.1.3.4.1204112213090.4991@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
 <CAPFanBHbb1uKg3zTy7AsjCehtcofZhs-KJzCi5d7=J7B=+twJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Prayer.1.3.4.1204121807300.29470@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
 <4F870F05.5010903@frisch.fr>
X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: "L.P. White" <lpw25@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [ANN] ocamlopen 1.0.2

On Apr 12 2012, Alain Frisch wrote:

>Do we really need a new special tag?  Why not use Object_tag and 
>represent slots as blocks of size 2 (constructor name + unique integer 
>as the second field)?  This would have the following consequences (which 
>are the expected ones):
>

I hadn't really considered that option, but it seems like that would 
probably work. It would mean a slightly slower structural comparison, but 
on the other hand it would produce better hashes and might allow slightly 
quicker pattern matching in some specific cases.

Regards,

Leo