Pointers exist in Caml, and in fact they spread all over the place.
They are used either implicitely (in the most cases), or explicitely
(in the rare occasions where implicit pointers are not more handy).
The vast majority of pointers usages that are found in usual
programming languages simply disapear in Caml, or more exactly, those
pointers are totally automatically handled by the compiler and the
Caml programmer can safely just ignore their existence, focusing on
the semantic of its program.
For instance lists or trees are defined without explicit pointers
using a concrete datatype definition. The underlying implementation
uses pointers, but this is transparent to the programmer since pointer
handling is done by the compiler.
In the rare occasions where explicit pointers are needed (the most common case is when translating in Caml an algorithm described in a classic imperative language), Caml provides references that are full-fledged pointers, even first class citizen pointers (references can be passed as argument, embedded into arbitrary data structures, and returned as function results).
ref
You can program directly with explicit references if you want to, but this is normally a vast of time and effort.
Let's examine the simple example of linked lists (integer lists to be simple). This data type is defined in C (or in Pascal) using explicit pointers, for instance:
/* Cells and lists type */ struct cell { int hd; struct cell *tl; }; typedef struct cell cell, *list;
We can translate this in Caml, using a sum type definition, without pointers:
type list = | Nil | Cons of int * list;;
Cell lists are thus represented as pairs, and the recursive
structure of lists is evident, with the two alternatives, empty list
(the Nil
constructor) and non empty list (the
Cons
constructor).
Automatic management of pointers and automatic memory allocation
shine when allocating list values:
one just writes Cons (x, l)
to add
x
in front of the list l
. In C, you need to
write this function, to allocate a new cell and then fill its
fields. For instance:
/* The empty list */ #define nil NULL /* The constructor of lists */ list cons (element x, list l) { list result; result = (list) malloc (sizeof (cellule)); result -> hd = x; result -> tl = l; return (result); }
We thus see that fields of list cells in the C program have to be mutable, otherwise initialization is impossible. By contrast in Caml, allocation and initialization are merged into a single basic operation: constructor application. This way, immutable data structures are definable (those data types are often refered to as ``pure'' or ``functionnal'' data structures). If physical modifications are necessary for other reasons than mere initialization, Caml provides records with mutable fields. For instance, a list type defining lists whose elements can be in place modified could be written:
type list = | Nil | Cons of cell and cell = {mutable hd : int; tl : list};;
If the structure of the list itself must also be modified (cells must be
physically removed from the list), the tl
field would also
be declared as mutable:
type list = | Nil | Cons of cell and cell = {mutable hd : int; mutable tl : list};;
Physical assignments are still useless to allocate mutable data:
you write Cons {hd = 1; tl = l}
to add 1
to
the list l
. Physical assigments that remain in Caml programs
should be just those assignments that are mandatory to implement the
algorithm at hand.
Very often, pointers are used to implement physical modification of data structures. In Caml programs this means using vectors or mutable fields in records. For this kind of use of pointers, the Pascal's instruction:
x^.label := val
(where x
is a value of a
record having a label
field)
corresponds to the Caml construct
x.label <- val
((where x
is a value of a
record having a label
mutable field)
^
symbol simply disapears, since
dereferencing is automatically handled by the Caml compiler.
In conclusion:
You can use explicit pointers in Caml, exactly as in Pascal or C, but
this is not natural, since you get back the usual drawbacks and
difficulties of explicit pointers manipulation of classical
algorithmic languages. See a more complete example below.
The general pointer type can be defined using the definition of a pointer: a pointer is either null, or a pointer to an assignable memory location:
type 'a pointer = Null | Pointer of 'a ref;;
Explicit dereferencing (or reading the pointer's designated value)
and pointer assignment (or writing to the pointer's designated memory
location) are easily defined. We define dereferencing as a prefix
operator named !^
, and assigment as the infix
^:=
.
let ( !^ ) = function | Null -> invalid_arg "Attempt to dereference the null pointer" | Pointer r -> !r;; val ( !^ ) : 'a pointer -> 'a = <fun> let ( ^:= ) p v = match p with | Null -> invalid_arg "Attempt to assign the null pointer" | Pointer r -> r := v;; val ( ^:= ) : 'a pointer -> 'a -> unit = <fun>
Now we define the allocation of a new pointer initialized to points to a given value:
let new_pointer x = Pointer (ref x);; val new_pointer : 'a -> 'a pointer = <fun>
For instance, let's define and then assign a pointer to an integer:
#let p = new_pointer 0;; val p : int pointer = Pointer (ref 0) #p^:=1;; - : unit = () #!^p;; - : int = 1
Now we can define lists using explicit pointers as in usual imperative languages:
(* The list type ``à la Pascal'' *) type ilist = cell pointer and cell = {mutable hd : int; mutable tl : ilist};;
We then define allocation of a new cell, the list constructor and its associated destructors.
let new_cell () = {hd = 0; tl = Null};; val new_cell : unit -> cell = <fun> let cons x l = let c = new_cell () in c.hd <- x; c.tl <- l; (new_pointer c : ilist);; val cons : int -> ilist -> ilist = <fun> let hd (l : ilist) = !^l.hd;; val hd : ilist -> int = <fun> let tl (l : ilist) = !^l.tl;; val tl : ilist -> ilist = <fun>
We can now write all kind of classical algorithms, based on pointers manipulation, with their associated loops, their unwanted sharing problems and their null pointer errors. For instance, list concatenation, as often described in litterature, physically modifies its first list argument, hooking the second list to the end of the first:
(* Physical append *) let append (l1 : ilist) (l2 : ilist) = let temp = ref l1 in while tl !temp <> Null do temp := tl !temp done; !^ !temp.tl <- l2;; val append : ilist -> ilist -> unit = <fun>
(* An example: *) let l1 = cons 1 (cons 2 Null);; val l1 : ilist = Pointer (ref {hd = 1; tl = Pointer (ref {hd = 2; tl = Null})}) let l2 = cons 3 Null;; val l2 : ilist = Pointer (ref {hd = 3; tl = Null}) append l1 l2;; - : unit = ()
The lists l1
and l2
are effectively catenated:
l1;; - : ilist = Pointer (ref {hd = 1; tl = Pointer (ref {hd = 2; tl = Pointer (ref {hd = 3; tl = Null})})})
Just a nasty side effect of physical list concatenation:
l1
now contains the concatenation of the two lists
l1
and l2
, thus the list l1
no
longer exists: in some sense append
consumes its
first argument. In other words, the value of a list data now depends
on its history, that is on the sequence of function calls that use
the value. This strange behaviour leads to a lot of difficulties when
explicitely manipulating pointers.
Try for instance, the seemingly harmless:
append l1 l1;; - : unit = ()
Then evaluate l1
:
l1;;
To go beyond Pascal type system, we define polymorphic lists using pointers; here is a simple implementation of those polymorphic mutable lists:
type 'a list = 'a cell pointer and 'a cell = {mutable hd : 'a pointer; mutable tl : 'a list};; let new_cell () = {hd = Null; tl = Null};; let cons x l = let c = new_cell () in c.hd <- new_pointer x; c.tl <- l; (new_pointer c : 'a lists);; let hd (l : 'a lists) = !^l.hd;; let tl (l : 'a lists) = !^l.tl;; let append (l1 : 'a lists) (l2 : 'a lists) = let temp = ref l1 in while tl !temp <> Null do temp := tl !temp done; !^ !temp.tl <- l2;;
Contact the author Pierre.Weis@inria.fr