From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9156EBC69 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 04:21:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.135]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l512Lh1O007304 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 04:21:44 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAAIeX0Y7pwkO/2dsb2JhbAAN X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.16,371,1175437800"; d="scan'208";a="97452298" Received: from ppp9-14.lns1.syd7.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.201]) ([59.167.9.14]) by ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 01 Jun 2007 11:51:40 +0930 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Comparison of OCaml and MLton for numerics From: skaller To: Erik de Castro Lopo Cc: caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: <20070601113615.fd7857e5.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> References: <5195a210705302250u6a9e5adey4ed857480f9e5cd8@mail.gmail.com> <200705311008.16662.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <5195a210705310222p6aa8482fr70e7bf2b2b631b72@mail.gmail.com> <200705311127.28639.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <465F3E8C.10404@inria.fr> <1180660974.15528.126.camel@rosella.wigram> <20070601113615.fd7857e5.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:21:38 +1000 Message-Id: <1180664498.15528.153.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 465F82B7.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 slides:01 caml-list:01 thesis:01 optimization:03 clause:03 erik:04 comparison:04 fri:05 usual:06 john:09 felix:09 On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 11:36 +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > skaller wrote: > > > Someone (as usual no URL sorry) wrote a paper roughly titled > > 'guaranteed optimisations' which is actually an interesting > > perspective on this whole scenario. > > I found a bunch of slides titled "The Guaranteed Optimization > Clause of the Macro-Writer's Bill of Rights": > > http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~chaynes/danfest/dyb.pdf The paper i think of was a master or PhD thesis.. -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net