Re: Polymorphic recursion 9Was Re: [Caml-list] Doubly-linked list)

[John Max Skaller <skaller@ozemail.com.au>]

Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons wrote:

> Brian Rogoff a écrit
> 
> 
>>Oh I'm not arguing that point, I totally agree that it's omission is a 
>>bad thing. However, not everyone agrees, since you it becomes a lot tougher
>>to build a monomorphizing compiler if you allow it, though it has been 
>>suggested that the same tricks you use to manually remove polymorphic
>>recursion could be used in an SSC (sufficiently smart compiler). 
>>
> 
> I do not agree with your analysis since I really do not believe anyone
> could think that polymorphic recursion is useless. But it is a
> _difficult_ subject and the Caml Team is working on it (you can read
> their research summary)


I'm confused. I think you mean *type inference* is difficult
if you want polymorphic recursion?

-- 
John Max Skaller, mailto:skaller@ozemail.com.au
snail:10/1 Toxteth Rd, Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia.
voice:61-2-9660-0850


-------------------
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