From: "Andreas Rossberg" <AndreasRossberg@web.de>
To: "caml-list" <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] List.rev
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 14:07:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <005001c4303e$00bf7730$7693b9d9@wiko> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1083399017.20722.25.camel@pelican.wigram>
skaller <skaller@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>
> There are better ways to write specifications
> that (a) refer to an implementation that isn't exhibited
> and (b) assume tail-rec implies no stack allocation
>
> The first is called 'ill formed formula', and
> the second is called 'unwarranted assumption'.
>
> So the spec is (a) meaningless gibberish
> and (b) even if the implementation were exhibited
> it says nothing about the performance.
>
> Yet it is easy enough to say
>
> O(n) time and O(1) stack
Sorry, but isn't talking about a stack even less meaningful
implementation-driven "gibberish"? Usually, a functional language definition
does not mention anything like a stack. In fact, some major FP
implementations don't even use a stack.
Tail recursion at least is a clear syntactic property that can be defined
without referring to implementation techniques. That a tail-recursive
function uses constant space is then a well-understood QOI issue. No serious
FP implementation would dare not to meet this criterion.
Cheers,
- Andreas
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-05-02 12:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-04-30 17:54 [Caml-list] "List.index" or "List.unique" functions? Rahul Siddharthan
2004-04-30 18:51 ` Martin Jambon
2004-04-30 19:01 ` Benjamin Geer
2004-04-30 19:07 ` Thanks " Rahul Siddharthan
2004-04-30 19:08 ` Karl Zilles
2004-04-30 19:29 ` Matthieu Sozeau
2004-04-30 20:01 ` Karl Zilles
2004-04-30 20:05 ` Remi Vanicat
2004-04-30 20:47 ` JM Nunes
2004-04-30 20:58 ` Karl Zilles
2004-05-01 1:59 ` [Caml-list] List.rev skaller
2004-05-01 4:18 ` Jon Harrop
2004-05-01 4:38 ` brogoff
2004-05-01 5:12 ` skaller
2004-05-01 7:08 ` William Lovas
2004-05-01 8:10 ` skaller
2004-05-01 8:32 ` Jon Harrop
2004-05-01 9:24 ` skaller
2004-05-02 12:07 ` Andreas Rossberg [this message]
2004-05-02 13:29 ` skaller
2004-05-01 10:07 ` Richard Jones
2004-05-01 10:09 ` Nicolas Cannasse
2004-05-02 16:04 ` Brian Hurt
2004-05-01 10:32 ` Jon Harrop
2004-05-01 16:41 ` John Goerzen
2004-05-01 19:11 ` skaller
2004-05-01 10:03 ` [Caml-list] "List.index" or "List.unique" functions? Richard Jones
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='005001c4303e$00bf7730$7693b9d9@wiko' \
--to=andreasrossberg@web.de \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).