From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: weis
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id QAA05648 for caml-redistribution; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 16:02:26 +0100 (MET)
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 KAA13004 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:33:01 +0100 (MET)
Received: from pcrm.win.tue.nl (pcrm.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.41])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA02261
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:32:59 +0100 (MET)
Received: (from stephan@localhost)
	by pcrm.win.tue.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA16574
	for caml-list@inria.fr; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:34:47 +0100
Message-ID: <20000131103447.A16550@pcrm.win.tue.nl>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:34:47 +0100
From: Stephan Houben <stephan@pcrm.win.tue.nl>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: inlining functions called through functor parameters?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.1i
Sender: weis

Hello list,

While searching the Caml mailing list archive, I found
a message from Xavier Leroy, posted on Tue Jun 23 1998,
in which he describes the fact that:
"... it is true that functions taken from the
 functor parameter are always called via their closures".

I was wondering if this is still true (since 1998 is a long
time ago, in internet time at least), and if there are any plans
to implement more inlining for such functions.
The reason I ask is because I'm writing a couple of modules where
lots of small funtions are called via a functor parameter, and
I'm wondering if it's worth the trouble to inline them "by hand".

Greetings,

Stephan Houben