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 VAA11286; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 21:47:33 +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 VAA11299 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 21:47:32 +0100 (MET)
Received: from smtp-send.myrealbox.com (smtp-send.myrealbox.com [192.108.102.143])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id gB5KlUX06158
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 21:47:31 +0100 (MET)
Received: from tw304h3 oleg_inconnu@smtp-send.myrealbox.com [156.111.84.180]
	by smtp-send.myrealbox.com with NetMail SMTP Agent $Revision:   3.20  $ on Novell NetWare
	via secured & encrypted transport (TLS);
	Thu, 05 Dec 2002 13:47:30 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
From: Oleg <oleg_inconnu@myrealbox.com>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: [Caml-list] Why is (@) written in O'Caml?
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 15:47:09 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <200212051547.09337.oleg_inconnu@myrealbox.com>
Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Precedence: bulk

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. All=
 one=20
really has to do during "append" is copy l1 and set the last element's CD=
R to=20
l2. I can see why this can not be done in O'Caml itself, but since (@) is=
=20
such a common operation, I'm wondering why it was decided to implement it=
=20
inefficently in O'Caml itself?

Cheers,
Oleg
-------------------
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