[Mono-list] Making a ruby.net compiler
Mon, 12 May 2003 19:29:09 +1000
On 11-May-2003, Michal Moskal <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 3. if you are familiar with ILX, you should remember .classunion type
> there, that just did discriminating unions.
> But I believe it isn't very good idea to put it in Mono, since it's
> very limited (namely it seems to fit OCaml variants, but not SML
> variants (things after of can have names)
I agree that fields of discriminated union alternatives should be namable;
many languages which support discriminated unions, including Mercury,
Haskell, and Ada, allow or even require them to be named.
> or OCaml polymorphic
> variants (one polymorphic variant can be in several types)).
That's true, but how many other languages have OCaml-style polymorphic
Ordinary discriminated unions are present in a very large number of
languages, so the benefits for language interoperability of including
them in the underlying runtime are much higher. Also, I suspect that
there is more scope for optimizing the representation of ordinary
Fergus Henderson <email@example.com> | "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne | of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.