From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id WAA08811 for caml-redistribution; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:12:03 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA03636 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 05:19:20 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from igw3.watson.ibm.com (igw3.watson.ibm.com [198.81.209.18])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA12602
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 05:19:19 +0200 (MET DST)
From: chet@watson.ibm.com
Received: from mailhub.watson.ibm.com (mailhub.watson.ibm.com [9.2.250.97])
	by igw3.watson.ibm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/05-14-1999) with ESMTP id XAA09150;
	Sat, 9 Oct 1999 23:19:17 -0400
Received: from nautilus.chet.org (lig32-226-140-42.us.lig-dial.ibm.com [32.226.140.42]) by mailhub.watson.ibm.com (8.8.7/Feb-20-98) with ESMTP id XAA19944; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 23:19:15 -0400
Received: from bismarck.chet.org (root@bismarck.chet.org [192.168.10.15])
	by nautilus.chet.org (8.8.8/8.8.8/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id XAA09354;
	Sat, 9 Oct 1999 23:20:52 -0400
Received: from bismarck.chet.org (chet@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by bismarck.chet.org (8.8.8/8.8.8/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id XAA05256;
	Sat, 9 Oct 1999 23:18:29 -0400
Message-Id: <199910100318.XAA05256@bismarck.chet.org>
To: John Prevost <prevost@maya.com>
cc: skaller <skaller@maxtal.com.au>, caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: Proposal for study: Add a categorical Initial type to ocaml 
In-reply-to: Your message of 09 Oct 1999 18:43:35 EDT.
             <ya2n1tsb1ew.fsf@po.maya.com> 
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 23:18:29 -0400
Sender: weis


I second John's point.  In order to capture Java's semantics "on the
nose", you need to be able to model a slot of the T, which can contain
a "null".

Doing that by transforming Java's "T" to Caml's "T option", while
using a more-efficient representation under-the-covers, preserves the
possibility of disabling that efficiency-hack and debugging in a
cleaner environment.

Moreover, Java's semantics for variable-access is that fetching a null
value doesn't raise an exception -- only invoking a method on it
raises an exception.

So one can't use this "initial value" to model Java's "null".

Now, nobody claimed that Java's "null" was the target here, but, hey,
that's my $0.02.

--chet--