From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p7GJkKoc031053 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:46:20 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkEBANTISk7U436rkWdsb2JhbABBhEijexQBAQEBCQsLBxQDIoFAAQEEASNWEAsODAImAgJXBhMJh2cCAqgVkhCBLIQMgRAEjAGMHYtr X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,235,1312149600"; d="scan'208";a="105614702" Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.171]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 16 Aug 2011 21:46:15 +0200 Received: from office1.lan.sumadev.de (dslb-094-219-218-063.pools.arcor-ip.net [94.219.218.63]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu1) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0M8dGh-1REwqr2ARn-00wAWB; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:46:14 +0200 Received: from [192.168.0.33] (dslb-084-058-048-069.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.58.48.69]) by office1.lan.sumadev.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 11D70C00C7; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:46:13 +0200 (CEST) From: Gerd Stolpmann To: Jeffrey Scofield Cc: caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: References: <20110816152550.GA21081@annexia.org> <20110816155137.GA18365@ccellier.rd.securactive.lan> <20110816161042.GA31932@annexia.org> <20110816162205.GC31932@annexia.org> <20110816162719.GD31932@annexia.org> <4E4A9C17.7060605@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:46:40 +0200 Message-ID: <1313524000.20782.6.camel@gps-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:QZU/mcJyuHYBkf3PMDTPBQsr+9cd6nw8a6tGIDiuJ3i GzaRbE7Kix90k/h7xYqUCKw/z5PHZ5QOtzGFT0tVnqnuCOOyQe 2UVzrcOyF0Y0U8B8t2UYOUa6JzOBDNsmoYRLKqTiCQTy35RCBx v6SKnoNqQM8mn8Oni4TLT+GERONK+yMV+Njjh/eAIWIuddFmss dDruFLzcjt7xtXqtBDoJA== Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Interfacing with C: bad practice Am Dienstag, den 16.08.2011, 11:55 -0500 schrieb Jeffrey Scofield: > (One great thing about the ML family is that there > are exceptionally clear answers to questions like this. > Especially for Standard ML.) I don't know for SML, but OCaml also leaves the order unspecified in which function arguments are evaluated (and ocamlc and ocamlopt behave even differently in this respect). So I think the problem would translate to OCaml in some form. Gerd > > Jeffrey > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Gerd Stolpmann, Darmstadt, Germany gerd@gerd-stolpmann.de Creator of GODI and camlcity.org. Contact details: http://www.camlcity.org/contact.html Company homepage: http://www.gerd-stolpmann.de *** Searching for new projects! Need consulting for system *** programming in Ocaml? Gerd Stolpmann can help you. ------------------------------------------------------------