From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id VAA09815; Sat, 1 May 2004 21:11:18 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA09842 for ; Sat, 1 May 2004 21:11:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.203]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i41JBDEV013116 for ; Sat, 1 May 2004 21:11:15 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp116-155.lns1.syd2.internode.on.net [150.101.116.155]) by smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i41JB4k2051373; Sun, 2 May 2004 04:41:06 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] List.rev From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: John Goerzen Cc: caml-list In-Reply-To: <20040501164108.GA9707@complete.org> References: <20040430175429.GB11118@online.fr> <4092A448.6080909@1969.ws> <1083376750.2581.183.camel@pelican.wigram> <20040501164108.GA9707@complete.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1083438663.20722.79.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 02 May 2004 05:11:04 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 4093F651.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 sourceforge:01 2004:99 2004:99 sigh:01 9660:01 glebe:01 behaviour:01 nsw:01 snail:02 overflow:02 complexity:02 checkout:02 stack:02 stack:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 02:41, John Goerzen wrote: > On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 11:59:10AM +1000, skaller wrote: > > BTW: documentation that says a function is 'tail recursive' > > is misguided. That's an implementation detail of no > > possible use to a user of the function. The user may > > benefit from knowing the complexity of the function > > in terms of speed and auxilliary storage required. > > That wrong. I really want to know whether or not I'm going to get a > stack overflow from using a function on a large list. Sigh. I agree. You want to know that. And saying 'tail-rec' DOES NOT TELL YOU. Saying O(1) stack does. So I'd like to see those comments changed to actually describe behaviour in abstract terms, rather than just being a loose hint about the possible implementation, leaving you to guess what the implication is. -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net ------------------- 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