[ Disclaimer: IANAL, but I've been within Debian on several copyright
/ licensing issues like this one. What I contribute below
descends only from that---potentially limited---experience. ]
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 10:59:12PM -0800, Tim Rentsch wrote:
If Jason's current manuscript
Hello,
I've been receiving several copies of each message sent to the list for a
couple of days now. Am I the only one?
Cheers,
Matthieu
___
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
The deadline is in **10 days** (i.e. 15th March) ...
*
* 7th International Symposium
* on
* Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis
*
*
Hello!
I want to define two records referencing each other. First record (A)
has direct reference to second (B) and second (B) has weak hash table to
list records A, which have reference to it. For example (pseudo code):
type a
{
id : int ;
mutable field1 : string;
mutable b : B;
}
type b
Vsevolod Fedorov a e'crit :
snip
Is it possible at all?
Yes, you have to use type .. and .. ;; statements
for instance:
type a =
{
id : int ;
mutable field_1 : string;
mutable field_b : b;
}
and b =
{
id : int;
mutable field_2 : string;
field_a_list : a array; (* they referenced me *)
};;
Something seems to be wrong with the list, this is the 18th copy of this one
message I have received! I am receiving 2 to 4 copies of most messages.
-EdK
Ed Keith
e_...@yahoo.com
Blog: edkeith.blogspot.com
--- On Mon, 3/2/09, Jon Harrop j...@ffconsultancy.com wrote:
From: Jon Harrop
Hello,
Le mer. 04 mars 2009 16:31:02 CET,
Vsevolod Fedorov sevaatw...@mail.ru a écrit :
type a
{
id : int ;
mutable field1 : string;
mutable b : B;
}
type b
{
id : int;
mutable field2 : string;
a_list : Weak-Hashtbl(a); (* they referenced me *)
}
Is it possible
Vsevolod Fedorov wrote:
Hello!
I want to define two records referencing each other. First record (A)
has direct reference to second (B) and second (B) has weak hash table to
list records A, which have reference to it. For example (pseudo code):
type a
{
id : int ;
mutable field1 :
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 01:11:18 -0500, Brian Hurt wrote:
Try this. Let's reimplement Haskell's Fractional class, in Ocaml, and
then do Newton's method using this new Fractional class. [...]
module type Fractional = sig
type t
val ( +. ) : t - t - t
val ( -. ) : t - t - t
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 16:31:02 +0300, Vsevolod Fedorov wrote:
I want to define two records referencing each other. First record (A)
has direct reference to second (B) and second (B) has weak hash table to
list records A, which have reference to it. For example (pseudo code):
type a
{
id :
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 04 March 2009 01:11:18 am Brian Hurt wrote:
This is another large factor. The three reasons functors aren't used very
much are because:
1) They're a big, scary name,
2) They're slightly less efficient,
3) There are no good tutorials
i'm just trying to get my head around what it might look like, and
if/how it might be useful. (it just bugs me that somebody can claim
that C++ is the /only/ language that could do it -- maybe the real
quote implied mainstream or something. apparently Ada wasn't up to
snuff
I've worked a little bit with C++ using unboxed objects, that
is without introducing pointers (similar to boxing) in templates,
like listfigure instead of listfigure*, and passing them
as value in parameters, or returning them,
and it was far less efficient because there was lots of copy,
and you
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Peng Zang wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 04 March 2009 01:11:18 am Brian Hurt wrote:
This is another large factor. The three reasons functors aren't used very
much are because:
1) They're a big, scary name,
2) They're slightly less
When looking at the benchmark game and other benchmarks I have seen, I
noticed that Haskell is almost as fast as OCaml and sometimes faster.
Some Lisp implementations are also pretty fast.
However, when you look at memory consumption OCaml uses considerably
less memory, except for languages in
On Mar 4, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen wrote:
When looking at the benchmark game and other benchmarks I have seen, I
noticed that Haskell is almost as fast as OCaml and sometimes faster.
Some Lisp implementations are also pretty fast.
However, when you look at memory consumption
On Mar 4, 2009, at 17.14 h, Brian Hurt wrote:
So then you start throwing out the standard instances, among others,
you do one for string:
instance Sexpable String where
toSexp s = Atom s
fromSexp (Atom s) = Just s
fromSexp _ = Nothing
2009/3/3 Raoul Duke rao...@gmail.com:
hi,
the caml archives show discussion around C++ polymorphism wrt STL
(since Stepanov iirc said that C++ was the only language which
supported what he needed to let him implement his generic programming)
but i didn't yet see anywhere a concrete
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 04 March 2009 11:14:50 am Brian Hurt wrote:
Yeah. I think of this as one of the advantages of Functors.
Here are two real problems I've hit with type classes, in only a few weeks
banging around in Haskell.
For example, you can't
Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen mik...@dvide.com writes:
2009/3/3 Raoul Duke rao...@gmail.com:
hi,
the caml archives show discussion around C++ polymorphism wrt STL
(since Stepanov iirc said that C++ was the only language which
supported what he needed to let him implement his generic programming)
The Second Answer Set Programming Competition
Call For Participation
K.U.Leuven, Belgium, spring 2009
oh, and another thing:
I'd like the VM to be small enough to link into an executable like the
OCaml runtime so you don't have some version and dispatch nightmare.
Mikkel
___
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
On Wednesday 04 March 2009 18:15:50 Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen wrote:
oh, and another thing:
I'd like the VM to be small enough to link into an executable like the
OCaml runtime so you don't have some version and dispatch nightmare.
You can generate executables but it takes 10s to compile HLVM
On Wednesday 04 March 2009 06:11:18 Brian Hurt wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Jon Harrop wrote:
Efficiency is only important in the context of functors when abstracting
very fast and common functions like arithmetic without defunctorizing
your code. I don't think that is why people avoid
On Wednesday 04 March 2009 16:48:18 Yoann Padioleau wrote:
I don't think so. I've read the last history of C++ by Stroustrup
in HOPL-III, who discusses quite a lot about the STL and Stepanov,
and from what I remember unboxing was a big issue
and having generic (which is slightly different from
Jon Harrop j...@ffconsultancy.com writes:
On Wednesday 04 March 2009 16:48:18 Yoann Padioleau wrote:
I don't think so. I've read the last history of C++ by Stroustrup
in HOPL-III, who discusses quite a lot about the STL and Stepanov,
and from what I remember unboxing was a big issue
and
On Mar 4, 2009, at 21.49 h, Yoann Padioleau wrote:
But haven't they added generics in Java because Java programmers
wanted some of the capabilities of C++ templates ? They even
use its syntax, and recent Java has added some ugly extensions
with some star-stuff around it that I don't understand.
Excerpts from Brian Hurt's message of Wed Mar 04 17:14:50 +0100 2009:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Peng Zang wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 04 March 2009 01:11:18 am Brian Hurt wrote:
[...]
But I'll add one more reason. With functors you have extra
On Wednesday 04 March 2009 20:49:14 Yoann Padioleau wrote:
Jon Harrop j...@ffconsultancy.com writes:
On Wednesday 04 March 2009 16:48:18 Yoann Padioleau wrote:
I don't think so. I've read the last history of C++ by Stroustrup
in HOPL-III, who discusses quite a lot about the STL and
On Wednesday 04 March 2009 23:18:21 Pal-Kristian Engstad wrote:
Jon Harrop wrote:
C++'s job market share has fallen 50% in 4 years here in the UK:
http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/jobs/uk/c++.do
Sure -- those are probably not jobs that require performance, nor have
resource constraints.
I
Jon Harrop wrote:
On Wednesday 04 March 2009 23:18:21 Pal-Kristian Engstad wrote:
Sure -- those are probably not jobs that require performance, nor have
resource constraints.
I do not believe that C++ is significantly faster or better at handling
resources than higher-level
To the OCaml community,
I apologize for my silence. I have very strong feelings for this
community. I have benefited quite profoundly from Caml (starting when
I first wrote Metaprl in caml-light), and I wish to continue my role
as an advocate, supporter, and instructor. Before I can say
On Thursday 05 March 2009 02:15:20 Pal-Kristian Engstad wrote:
Jon Harrop wrote:
On Wednesday 04 March 2009 23:18:21 Pal-Kristian Engstad wrote:
Sure -- those are probably not jobs that require performance, nor have
resource constraints.
I do not believe that C++ is significantly faster
On Thursday 05 March 2009 02:15:20 Pal-Kristian Engstad wrote:
Jon Harrop wrote:
On Wednesday 04 March 2009 23:18:21 Pal-Kristian Engstad wrote:
Sure -- those are probably not jobs that require performance, nor have
resource constraints.
I do not believe that C++ is significantly
34 matches
Mail list logo
