From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <n8gray@gmail.com>
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 931DDBD73
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Wed, 17 Aug 2005 01:01:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.194])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j7GN1Ewh020042
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Wed, 17 Aug 2005 01:01:15 +0200
Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 8so35283nzo
        for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=YOtPz4txzMkRkJrnWLWg6vfjBc5zCvvuxz1kRg0KGzPBr5FBHK+JFPR2iosALy+wls5Ty8DJWDyNb2M5TAawAry5SBKhkufD7JcgPZydJPZL8uKfSXXUXkPo+M5CT/u26WgDyiBNL5SsvWjPpXbngrSyeuiwWr5eBr5FL1cJ8IM=
Received: by 10.36.158.3 with SMTP id g3mr30408nze;
        Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.17.2 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <aee06c9e05081616015bf2ccd9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:01:14 -0700
From: Nathaniel Gray <n8gray@gmail.com>
To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Representation of objects
In-Reply-To: <20050817.074034.03110706.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <aee06c9e050816150491c35f9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20050817.074034.03110706.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 4302703A.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)!
X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 invocations:01 superclass:01 bytecode:01 posts:01 compiler:01 hash:01 wrote:01 compile:01 functions:01 essentially:01 jacques:01 caltech:02 caltech:02 caml:02 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_BY_IP autolearn=disabled 
	version=3.0.3

On 8/16/05, Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> wrote:
> From: Nathaniel Gray <n8gray@gmail.com>
>=20
> > I've got two questions:
> >
> > 1.  Does this mean that essentially all method invocations need to
> > search the method table?  The method table of a superclass is no
> > longer a prefix of that of a subclass.  There's a GETMETHOD(i,obj)
> > bytecode, but I'm struggling to figure out when you could use it.
>=20
> From other posts, it seems that you have found caml_get_public_method.

I have, but my question is whether or not this search is necessary on
every method call everywhere.  It seems like it probably is, but
perhaps there's something I haven't considered.  I'm basically trying
to figure out how clever the compiler is.

> > 2.  What about hash collisions?  There's no collision resolution code
> > in the method lookup functions.
>=20
> The type system prevents them. That is, if there is a potential
> collision between tag names, it will be detected at compile time.

Ok, I see.

Thanks,
-n8

--=20
>>>-- Nathaniel Gray -- Caltech Computer Science ------>
>>>-- Mojave Project -- http://mojave.cs.caltech.edu -->