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 IAA20481; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 08:26:13 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA20484 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 08:26:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dewberry.cc.columbia.edu (dewberry.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.59.68]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g6P6QBT06912 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 08:26:11 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from there (tw304h3.cpmc.columbia.edu [156.111.84.180]) by dewberry.cc.columbia.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA03249; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 02:26:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200207250626.CAA03249@dewberry.cc.columbia.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Oleg To: sajuma@utu.fi Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Rule based language [was: productivity improvement] Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 02:26:23 -0400 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: caml-list@inria.fr References: <1027549877.3d3f2ab5bff5c@webmail.utu.fi> In-Reply-To: <1027549877.3d3f2ab5bff5c@webmail.utu.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Wednesday 24 July 2002 06:31 pm, sajuma@utu.fi wrote: > I think you misunderstood the specification of the language. > (It was not very clear). The meaning of "a and b" should not > be "a is reachable and b is reachable" (additive and), but > "a and b are true at the same time" (multiplicative and). > Of course I could be mistaken too, but the multiplicative case > is more interesting. I did not misunderstand. I use multiplicative AND. All three programs give equivalent output when they all finish for all cases I looked at. However, your and Alex's programs, for examle, fail to finish processing this file containing 9000 rules with preconditions of lengths 1 to 10, 10 goals and 10 dataset points. (My patience ran out after 72 and 45 minutes of waiting for your and Alex's programs, respectively): http://www.columbia.edu/~ot14/rules_test_long.input.gz (152 kB), while mine takes only 4 seconds. Something to think about [1] > Here is a question: in C you can hack in all the object > oriented features, so why are you using C++? Many claim that > OOP in C is better than in C++, so what would you say to these > people? I'd ask them if they were on any special medication. Cheers, Oleg [1] As I said, I certainly do not blame O'Caml for this. Just poor choice of algorithm. ------------------- 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