From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id BAA31372; Wed, 15 May 2002 01:17:33 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 BAA31368 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 01:17:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (fichte.ai.univie.ac.at [131.130.174.156]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g4ENHV919393 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 01:17:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from markus@localhost) by fichte.ai.univie.ac.at (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) id BAA22199; Wed, 15 May 2002 01:17:19 +0200 Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 01:17:19 +0200 From: Markus Mottl To: Jacques Garrigue Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Turning off type-checking Message-ID: <20020514231719.GA21332@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at> Mail-Followup-To: Jacques Garrigue , caml-list@inria.fr References: <20020513133102.GB9777@kiefer.ai.univie.ac.at> <20020514233326Q.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020514233326Q.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.26i Organization: Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Tue, 14 May 2002, Jacques Garrigue wrote: > One thing you might want to try is to write your own interpreter for > your subset of ocaml. According to the code snippets you posted, it is > restricted enough, so that should be easy. Then you can experiment > without compiling, and compile later if you really need to. Being so lazy, I thought that I could skip writing an interpreter, because I needed a pretty-printer anyway. And OCaml-code is just fine for this purpose... > Note that with some tricks your interpreter can share data > representation with ocaml, so that your functions could be called > directly from ocaml (with a bit of magic, of course). This is an interesting suggestion, thanks! > As long as your type are not really huge (like in Alain's example), and > you are not using subtyping, I don't think that there is much room for > improvement in the compiler. This said, we find a complexity bug once > in a while. One of them was quite serious: type checking was done twice > for arguments in applications. Usually you won't notice it, but if you > have an application inside an argument inside an argument... this was > exponential! Unfortunately I don't remember whether this was corrected > before or after 3.04. I don't think that I really hit the exponential wall anywhere so it's probably just that type-checking takes much longer than I had expected. Well, I can live with it... Regards, Markus Mottl -- Markus Mottl markus@oefai.at Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.oefai.at/~markus ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners