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 nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B606ABB81 for ; Sat, 1 Oct 2005 23:05:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from web26809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (web26809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.146.176.85]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with SMTP id j91L5KgW029181 for ; Sat, 1 Oct 2005 23:05:20 +0200 Received: (qmail 64730 invoked by uid 60001); 1 Oct 2005 21:05:20 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.de; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=d6gQt58tg1Y9zs2Fx3LPUSxQuyGph4bZBl4T2GhTjt7z3pecU0xpr1MAKQFf02+oJlVDQGtuf4oc49EC/8A0QlUUTMXFi8U6B2POBRGxnZso3p/TYjkv3J17to6MpjdCq/YfdLOfdXMmwBhyCuXnd2XNDiRpTVwJ5kXXQjK6OVk= ; Message-ID: <20051001210520.64728.qmail@web26809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Received: from [83.180.78.172] by web26809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 01 Oct 2005 23:05:19 CEST Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 23:05:19 +0200 (CEST) From: Martin Chabr Subject: Ant: Re: Ant: Re: [Caml-list] Avoiding shared data To: Pal-Kristian Engstad Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <200509301707.01281.pal_engstad@naughtydog.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 433EFA10.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 avoiding:01 recursive:01 stack:01 compilers:01 auf:98 ihre:98 wrote:01 tail:01 argument:01 ren:01 data:02 functional:02 functional:02 programming:03 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 Hello Pal-Kristian, I agree with you that functional code written in a tail recursive style is hard to read. Sometimes you have to do it that way if you want to avoid a stack overflow. I hope that one day functional language compilers will do that optimization for you - convert a non-tail-recursive code into a tail-recursive one. Do you know of some progress in that direction? Regards, Martin --- Pal-Kristian Engstad wrote: > I've always thought that this was a really bad > argument from the ML camp. The > logic of complicated control-paths is very easily > made a zillion times worse > by writing in a tail-recursive style. It is *not* a > good programming practice > to make hard-to-read code! ___________________________________________________________ Was denken Sie über E-Mail? Wir hören auf Ihre Meinung: http://surveylink.yahoo.com/wix/p0379378.aspx