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 RAA00335 for caml-red; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:19:41 +0100 (MET) Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA30884 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 16:16:27 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost.localdomain (starvin-marvin91.zip.com.au [210.23.142.91]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id eABFGM524345; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 16:16:23 +0100 (MET) Received: from ozemail.com.au (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA27454; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 02:15:28 +1100 Message-ID: <3A0D6290.B97CE632@ozemail.com.au> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 02:15:28 +1100 From: John Max Skaller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Xavier Leroy CC: Chris Hecker , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: fixed length arrays as types References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001104165041.00b3e370@shell16.ba.best.com> <20001108105312.57768@pauillac.inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr Xavier Leroy wrote: > To me, having array sizes in the array types is mostly a left-over > from languages where the compiler needs to treat static or > stack-allocated arrays differently than dynamically-allocated arrays. I'm not sure I can agree: I think the failure of functional languages to cope with array sizes is simply due to a lack of theory. See http://www-staff.socs.uts.edu.au/~cbj. -- John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au 10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850 checkout Vyper http://Vyper.sourceforge.net download Interscript http://Interscript.sourceforge.net