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 LAA20218; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 11:00:08 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 LAA20156 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 11:00:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from hirsch.in-berlin.de (hirsch.in-berlin.de [192.109.42.6]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3P906jq028380 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 11:00:06 +0200 X-Envelope-From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de X-Envelope-To: Received: from hirsch.in-berlin.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hirsch.in-berlin.de (8.12.11/8.12.11/Debian-3) with ESMTP id i3P9010r029364 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 11:00:03 +0200 Received: from first.UUCP (uucp@localhost) by hirsch.in-berlin.de (8.12.11/8.12.11/Debian-3) with UUCP id i3P8t2EJ028917 for inria.fr!caml-list; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 10:55:02 +0200 Received: by first.in-berlin.de via sendmail from stdin id (Debian Smail3.2.0.114) Sun, 25 Apr 2004 10:12:00 +0200 (CEST) From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de (Oliver Bandel) Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 10:12:00 +0200 To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Should be INSIDE STANDARD-LIB: Hashtbl.keys Message-ID: <20040425081200.GB762@first.in-berlin.de> References: <20040421011904.GA1411@first.in-berlin.de> <20040423145141.B3686@pauillac.inria.fr> <20040423182906.GB4117@excelhustler.com> <20040423191010.GB1506@first.in-berlin.de> <20040423204149.GA6485@excelhustler.com> <20040424080904.GA821@first.in-berlin.de> <20040424205936.GE29097@complete.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040424205936.GE29097@complete.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Miltered: at nez-perce by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; oliver:01 in-berlin:01 oliver:01 bandel:01 caml-list:01 hashtbl:01 2004:99 2004:99 bandel:01 imho:01 0200,:01 lib:01 necessarily:02 stack:02 ciao:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 03:59:36PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > On Sat, Apr 24, 2004 at 10:09:04AM +0200, Oliver Bandel wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 03:41:49PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > > OK, but why should we eliminate a useful function because 1% of uses > > > of it will be slow? > > > > > > Make a note in the docs (like that notes that are there already that say > > > "this function is not tail-recursive") and put it in for those that will > > > find it useful. > > > > > > What does the O()-notation have to do with tail recursiveness? > > IMHO nothing. But I'm not a computer scientist. Maybe there > > is a linkage between. But the O()-notation says something about the > > What I'm saying is this: a known problem with a function, whether it is > excessive stack use or slow performance, is not necessarily a reason to > keep it out of the standard library. The flaw should be noted in the > documentation. And that's just what has been done with the > non-tail-recursive functions. OK, I see and I agree with that. Nevertheless everybody is interested to have best stuff inside the lib, which is possible. Ciao, Oliver ------------------- 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