On 04-04-2008, Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Note you are talking about something different. I was talking about
>> using different scalar types in the same context.
>
> Even for scalars it is common to mix different numeric types: int8, int, 
> int64 
> etc.

I am not sure about that. Coming to mix different type are not that
common. In fact, most of the time, i am really annoyed by the
different type cast done by the compiler... I really do prefer to do
typecast explicitely. At least half of the time i don't get the expected
behavior and this is a huge source of bugs in C/C++ program. I like the
way OCaml doesn't mix this.

>
>> > The thread on the caml-list even detailed a complete example that does
>> > exactly this for int and int64 in an attempt to overcome some of OCaml's
>> > other problems.
>>
>> No in that thread he said he needs to use int64 he then wants
>> operators for each the types but he doesn't say he wants to mix them.
>
> In a different thread, Sylvain wrote a pair of mutually recursive functions 
> that mix int and int64 types. Indeed, it is difficult not to when so many of 
> the functions in Int64 use other scalar types.
>

The technic i use is general. You can apply it to many other
languages (C/C++...). For example you can switch big_num/int64/int with
the same scheme. This is just a question of using what is best at a
moment. Maybe it can be automatically deduced by compiler... But i think
most of the time, it will end up with beginning to compute things with
the biggest type (big_num). 

Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"ocaml-developer" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/ocaml-developer?hl=en
For other OCaml forums, see http://caml.inria.fr/resources/forums.en.html
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to