From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D87BC40 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:07:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i9QE7aCt004606 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:07:37 +0200 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 QAA03896 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:07:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [128.93.8.158] (macaque.inria.fr [128.93.8.158]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i9QE7aC0000852 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:07:36 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) In-Reply-To: <000601c4ba9e$6f9b8a00$1b447182@cas.mcmaster.ca> References: <000601c4ba9e$6f9b8a00$1b447182@cas.mcmaster.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <67E54EEE-2758-11D9-BCF8-00039310CAE8@inria.fr> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Damien Doligez Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Single-case union types as strong typedefs Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:07:43 +0200 To: "'caml users'" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 417E5A28.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 417E5A28.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; damien:01 damien:01 caml-list:01 typedefs:01 wrote:01 statically:01 statically:01 run-time:01 compiler:01 compiler:01 link-time:01 25,:98 25,:98 polymorphic:01 doligez:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: On Oct 25, 2004, at 16:25, Jacques Carette wrote: > Isn't that correct though? The value x is completely known > statically, and > all computation on x can be done statically, so it is not necessary to > have > any traces of x left at run-time. Then how do you pass it to a polymorphic function? > Yes, I am assuming that a fair bit of partial evaluation is a good > thing for > the compiler to do. Unfortunately, the compiler doesn't have all the information about the program. A lot of things are not known until link-time. -- Damien