From: Pierre Weis <Pierre.Weis@inria.fr>
To: michel.quercia@prepas.org
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] let mutable (was OCaml Speed for Block Convolutions)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:42:58 +0200 (MET DST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200106111342.PAA12420@pauillac.inria.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <01060821302901.00670@haguenauer> from Michel Quercia at "Jun 8, 101 09:30:29 pm"
> Le Vendredi 8 Juin 2001 19:30, Pierre Weis a écrit :
>
> > The introduction of a ``let mutable'', more concisely noted with the
> > var keyword, is not new: it has been discussed in the Caml groups 3 or
> > 4 years ago. We chose to abandon it for sake of semantics simplicity
> > of the language.
>
> For beginners (f.e. students) things look a bit complicated :
>
> (* summing up all elements of an integer array *)
> let adda a =
> let res = ref 0 in
> let i = ref 0 in
> while !i < Array.length(a) do res := !res+a.(!i); i := !i+1 done;
> !res
> ;;
>
> A lot of boring exclam, but that's the price to pay for having
> mutable values, and that's logical. Okay ...
>
> (* same, but with a for loop *)
> let add_1 a =
> let res = ref 0 in
> for i=0 to Array.length(a)-1 do res := !res + a.(i) done;
> !res
> ;;
>
> No exclam and no ref for i ? And its value is changing though ? Where is
> gone the logic ?
The for loop is a short hand for a call to a local recursive function:
no reference and no problem here, unless you consider that you cannot
change the arguments of a recursive call to a function.
(For readers not familiar with the subject, let's recall that
for i = e1 to e2 do e3 done
is equivalent to
let rec _loop i _lim = if i <= _lim then begin e3; _loop (i + 1) _lim end in
_loop e1 e2
(where _loop and _lim stand for new fresh identifiers, not free in e1, e2,
or e3)
)
> > This construction would have introduced the notion of
> > Lvalue in Caml, thus introducing some additional semantics complexity,
> > and a new notion to explain to beginners.
>
> Lvalues already exist in Ocaml (and have to be explained to beginners), for
> example : "a.(i) <- a.(i)+1".
I'm afraid this is wrong.
The syntactic construction e1.(e2) <- e3 is a short hand for a
function call: Array.set e1 e2 e3. Once more there is no Lvalue here,
just a regular function call (hence you can write arbitrary complex
expressions in place of e1, provided it returns an array value).
I'm a bit surprised that you feel it necessary to explain the notion
of Lvalue to beginners when there is no such notion in the language !
Best regards.
Pierre Weis
INRIA, Projet Cristal, Pierre.Weis@inria.fr, http://pauillac.inria.fr/~weis/
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-06-11 13:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-06-04 13:25 [Caml-list] OCaml Speed for Block Convolutions David McClain
2001-06-04 19:51 ` William Chesters
2001-06-04 20:05 ` Chris Hecker
2001-06-04 20:15 ` David McClain
2001-06-04 22:34 ` Markus Mottl
2001-06-06 20:13 ` William Chesters
2001-06-06 22:29 ` Chris Hecker
2001-06-07 7:42 ` William Chesters
2001-06-05 7:22 ` Chris Hecker
2001-06-06 6:27 ` David McClain
2001-06-04 22:14 ` Tom _
2001-06-04 22:57 ` Chris Hecker
2001-06-05 2:52 ` Brian Rogoff
2001-06-05 15:02 ` Stefan Monnier
2001-06-05 10:48 ` Tom _
2001-06-06 2:03 ` Hugo Herbelin
2001-06-06 4:04 ` Charles Martin
2001-06-06 18:25 ` William Chesters
2001-06-06 18:35 ` William Chesters
2001-06-06 18:40 ` Patrick M Doane
2001-06-07 1:50 ` Hugo Herbelin
2001-06-07 18:20 ` Tom _
2001-06-07 23:49 ` [Caml-list] let mutable (was OCaml Speed for Block Convolutions) Jacques Garrigue
2001-06-08 0:20 ` [Caml-list] Currying in Ocaml Mark Wotton
2001-06-08 10:13 ` Anton Moscal
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.21.0106081015000.1167-100000@hons.cs.usyd.edu.a u>
2001-06-08 0:38 ` Chris Hecker
2001-06-08 8:25 ` [Caml-list] let mutable (was OCaml Speed for Block Convolutions) Ohad Rodeh
2001-06-08 15:21 ` Brian Rogoff
2001-06-08 17:30 ` Pierre Weis
2001-06-08 18:36 ` Stefan Monnier
2001-06-08 19:07 ` Pierre Weis
2001-06-08 19:30 ` Michel Quercia
2001-06-11 6:42 ` [Caml-list] should "a.(i)" be a reference? (was "let mutable") Judicaël Courant
2001-06-11 13:42 ` Pierre Weis [this message]
2001-06-12 3:21 ` [Caml-list] let mutable (was OCaml Speed for Block Convolutions) Jacques Garrigue
2001-06-12 7:43 ` Pierre Weis
2001-06-12 8:31 ` Jacques Garrigue
2001-06-12 13:15 ` Georges Brun-Cottan
2001-06-12 21:54 ` John Max Skaller
2001-06-15 9:55 ` Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]
2001-06-08 9:00 Dave Berry
2001-06-08 10:23 Dave Berry
2001-06-15 3:20 Don Syme
2001-06-15 16:05 Dave Berry
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200106111342.PAA12420@pauillac.inria.fr \
--to=pierre.weis@inria.fr \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
--cc=michel.quercia@prepas.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox