From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr 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 35EEABB81 for ; Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:51:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ptb-relay01.plus.net (ptb-relay01.plus.net [212.159.14.212]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j8PEp55s026392 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:51:05 +0200 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=chetara) by ptb-relay01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1EJXqH-0006o5-CI for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Sun, 25 Sep 2005 15:51:01 +0100 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Efficiency of let/and Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 15:47:24 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200509251547.24885.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4336B959.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 stdlib:01 ocaml:01 frog:98 wrote:01 caml:02 objective:02 let:03 let:03 brian:03 efficiency:07 2005:91 question:11 question:11 i've:11 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Sunday 25 September 2005 14:31, Brian Hurt wrote: > So my question is: is there any value (other than the documentation value) > in doing this? Good question. I've no idea. However, I did notice that this change has been undone (i.e. to use "let" twice and not "and") in the stdlib. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. Objective CAML for Scientists http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists