From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C592EBB81 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2004 10:09:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iB999BHI022765 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2004 10:09:11 +0100 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 KAA20576 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2004 10:09:11 +0100 (MET) Received: from annexia.force9.co.uk (annexia.force9.co.uk [212.56.101.183]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iB999A6l003990 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2004 10:09:10 +0100 Received: from rich by annexia.force9.co.uk with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1CcKIR-0001zM-00 for ; Thu, 09 Dec 2004 09:09:11 +0000 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 09:09:11 +0000 Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: environment idiom Message-ID: <20041209090911.GA21478@annexia.org> References: <9410EC84C0872141B27A2726613EF45D02A52E08@psmrdcex01.psm.pin.safeco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="zhXaljGHf11kAtnf" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9410EC84C0872141B27A2726613EF45D02A52E08@psmrdcex01.psm.pin.safeco.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i From: Richard Jones X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 41B81637.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 41B81636.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; compile-time:01 hash:01 run-time:01 compile-time:01 idiom:01 seems:03 seems:03 preferable:05 investment:93 infinitely:07 whereas:08 object:09 environment:10 version:13 improving:13 X-Attachments: type="application/pgp-signature" name="signature.asc" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: --zhXaljGHf11kAtnf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Just an observation here: The object method seems to be compile-time safe, whereas the hash method seems to require run-time checks which could fail. Am I right in thinking this? If so, the compile-time safe version is infinitely preferable. Rich. --=20 Richard Jones. http://www.annexia.org/ http://www.j-london.com/ >>> http://www.team-notepad.com/ - collaboration tools for teams <<< Merjis Ltd. http://www.merjis.com/ - improving website return on investment http://execellence.co.uk/ - Interim and executive recruitment --zhXaljGHf11kAtnf Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBuBY24le1M6q9pzoRAkySAKDZAQeQ7tiysjzNCh0NjB+EfGGPzgCgm1ms vxEtCMPN4VtcfEjmm2xUx0c= =D1qz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --zhXaljGHf11kAtnf--