Alain Frisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Warren Harris wrote:
>> On Oct 30, 2008, at 11:48 AM, CUOQ Pascal - [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> In short: don't use weak pointers to make caches.
>>
>> Thanks for the advice -- but I thought this was exactly what weak
>> hash tables were intended for.
>
Le 31 oct. 08 à 03:14, Martin Jambon a écrit :
Warren Harris wrote:
I'd like to understand better how ocaml's weak pointers operate.
First,
although it doesn't seem to be specified in the documentation, I
assume
that weak pointers will *not* be reclaimed (e.g. from a weak hash
table)
if t
Hi,
> Your intuition is correct that it would theoretically be possible to
> try subtyping in place of unification in some cases. The trouble is
> that thoses cases are not easy to specify (so that it would be hard
> for the programmer to known when he can remove a coercion), and that
> subtyping
Daniel Bünzli wrote:
>
> Le 31 oct. 08 à 03:14, Martin Jambon a écrit :
>
>> Warren Harris wrote:
>>> I'd like to understand better how ocaml's weak pointers operate. First,
>>> although it doesn't seem to be specified in the documentation, I assume
>>> that weak pointers will *not* be reclaimed
Le 31 oct. 08 à 15:57, Martin Jambon a écrit :
(fst x) would certainly cause funny effects if x were GC'ed at an
arbitrary time after it has been added to the weak array.
You are confusing reclaiming the weak pointer (the Some x) and
reclaiming what the weak pointer refers to (the x). It's
Le 31 oct. 08 à 16:43, Philippe Wang a écrit :
I believe the answer is no.
Note that your example is not the same as mine, I do create a new
closure (the inner m1') which doesn't refer to bla in the code and the
pointer to the original m1 closure is overwritten.
And I'd prefer a non emp
Dear list,
I am pleased to announce the first release of Yacfe, Yet Another C/C++
Front-End, which is an OCaml API to write style-preserving source-to-source
transformations such as refactorings on C or C++ source code.
The goal of Yacfe is to parse the code as-is, and to represent it
internally
Daniel Bünzli wrote:
>
> Le 31 oct. 08 à 15:57, Martin Jambon a écrit :
>
>> (fst x) would certainly cause funny effects if x were GC'ed at an
>> arbitrary time after it has been added to the weak array.
>
> You are confusing reclaiming the weak pointer (the Some x) and
> reclaiming what the wea
On 31.10.2008 07:57, Martin Jambon wrote:
> let x = (1, 2);;
> let wa = Weak.create 10;;
> Weak.set wa 0 (Some x);;
> ...
> print_int (fst x);;
>
> (fst x) would certainly cause funny effects if x were GC'ed at an
> arbitrary time after it has been added to the weak array.
>
> An object can be r
Aleksey Nogin wrote:
> On 31.10.2008 07:57, Martin Jambon wrote:
>
>> let x = (1, 2);;
>> let wa = Weak.create 10;;
>> Weak.set wa 0 (Some x);;
>> ...
>> print_int (fst x);;
>>
>> (fst x) would certainly cause funny effects if x were GC'ed at an
>> arbitrary time after it has been added to the wea
Aleksey Nogin wrote:
> On 31.10.2008 07:57, Martin Jambon wrote:
>
>> let x = (1, 2);;
>> let wa = Weak.create 10;;
>> Weak.set wa 0 (Some x);;
>> ...
>> print_int (fst x);;
>>
>> (fst x) would certainly cause funny effects if x were GC'ed at an
>> arbitrary time after it has been added to the wea
Hi
Daniel Bünzli wrote:
Hello,
Is the closure's environment of definitions introduced by let rec shared
between the definitions ?
AFAIK, the answer is yes.
- I once saw this on a teaching slide of Xavier Leroy (I don't
remember which one, but you can probably find it on his webpage)
-
On Monday 20 October 2008 09:15:28 Alain wrote:
> David Allsopp wrote:
> > OK, so I've tried using the -nodynlink option with all calls to ocamlopt
> > and spotted *no* timing difference. A quick binary comparison of the EXE
> > produced reveals that ocamlopt -nodynlink is making ABSOLUTELY NO
> >
On Thursday 30 October 2008 18:48:26 CUOQ Pascal wrote:
> Warren Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd like to understand better how ocaml's weak pointers operate.
>
> You will be interested in the following important article:
> http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1411308
Is this freely avai
On Monday 20 October 2008 14:19:40 Kuba Ober wrote:
> what do you guys use for your development environment?
I use Emacs but I hate it.
> What would be the minimal set of functionality that would make you happy for
> an IDE?
. Written in OCaml using OCaml's own lexer and parser to save effort an
Jacques Garrigue wrote:
> Your intuition is correct that it would theoretically be possible to
> try subtyping in place of unification in some cases. The trouble is
> that thoses cases are not easy to specify (so that it would be hard
> for the programmer to known when he can remove a coercion),
16 matches
Mail list logo
