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 XAA13788 for caml-redistribution; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 23:34:37 +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 XAA11667 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 23:05:30 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk [129.215.41.196])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA25730
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 23:05:28 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from buckie (buckie.dai.ed.ac.uk [129.215.41.224])
	by postbox.dai.ed.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA15442;
	Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:05:26 +0100 (BST)
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:05:26 +0100
Message-Id: <24984.199910102105@buckie>
From: William Chesters <williamc@dai.ed.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: Proposal for study: Add a categorical Initial type to ocaml
In-Reply-To: <38002EBF.DF0EF779@maxtal.com.au>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9910060925320.18180-100000@mojave.cs.cornell.edu>
	<37FC6572.719AD12D@tsc.uc3m.es>
	<37FE1E1F.4790FE85@maxtal.com.au>
	<ya2n1tsb1ew.fsf@po.maya.com>
	<38002EBF.DF0EF779@maxtal.com.au>
X-Mailer: VM 6.22 under Emacs 19.34.1
Sender: weis

skaller writes:
 > > > Boxed values can use a null pointer for none.
 > > 
 > > I have a question--how is this different (except for the efficiency of
 > > using null) from using a 'a option array?
 > 
 > 	It isn't, in theory, it is exactly the same (and therefore sound).

I think (correct me if I'm wrong, sorry) that this is a return to an
issue which seems to be a bit of an FAQ.

The problem is that if you have a value of the type `int option
option', you have to be able to distinguish between `None' and `Some
None'!  If both the enumeration-indirections are elided, you can't; if
only one of them is, you have inconsistency which would presumably
have to be resolved using whole-program optimisation or something.

For the lowdown and an interesting proposal for a fix, see

	http://caml.inria.fr/caml-list/0967.html

The same idea would obviously apply to arrays.