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 WAA12212; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 22:14:06 +0100 (MET)
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 WAA11491 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 22:14:05 +0100 (MET)
Received: from slave-dog.naughtydog.com (naughtydog200.brandx.net [209.55.75.200])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id gB5LE4X07230
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 22:14:04 +0100 (MET)
Received: from SMTP agent by mail gateway 
 Thu, 05 Dec 2002 13:16:14 -0800
Received: from katn-dog (engstad@katn-dog.naughtydog.com [10.0.0.90])
	by slave-dog.naughtydog.com (SGI-8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA52284;
	Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:16:09 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Pal-Kristian Engstad <engstad@naughtydog.com>
Organization: Naughty Dog, Inc.
To: Oleg <oleg_inconnu@myrealbox.com>, caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Why is (@) written in O'Caml?
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:16:08 -0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3
References: <200212051547.09337.oleg_inconnu@myrealbox.com>
In-Reply-To: <200212051547.09337.oleg_inconnu@myrealbox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <200212051316.08952.engstad@naughtydog.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by slave-dog.naughtydog.com id NAA52284
Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Precedence: bulk

On Thursday 05 December 2002 12:47 pm, Oleg wrote:
> let rec (@) l1 l2 =3D
>   match l1 with
>     [] -> l2
>
>   | hd :: tl -> hd :: (tl @ l2)
>
> The O'Caml implementation of (@) is recursive and not tail-recursive. A=
ll
> one really has to do during "append" is copy l1 and set the last elemen=
t's
> CDR to l2. I can see why this can not be done in O'Caml itself, but sin=
ce
> (@) is such a common operation, I'm wondering why it was decided to
> implement it inefficently in O'Caml itself?

You say you want to copy l1 and then set the last element of tail to l2? =
But,=20
that is _exactly_ what the function above does!=20

let copy l1 =3D=20
  match l1 with
    [] -> []
  | hd :: tl -> hd :: copy tl

Right? So, the only change is the extra argument l2, that is being append=
ed=20
onto the list when l1 is empty.=20

PKE.
--=20
  _      =20
  \`.       P=E5l-Kristian Engstad, Senior Software Engineer,
   \ `|     Naughty Dog, Inc., 1315 3rd Street Promenade,=20
  __\ |`.   Santa Monica, CA 90046, USA. (310) 752-1000 x799.=20
    /  /o   mailto:engstad@naughtydog.com http://www.naughtydog.com
   /  '~    mailto:mrengstad@yahoo.com    http://www.engstad.com
  / ,'      Hang-gliding Rulez!
  ~'

-------------------
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