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 166FABB81 for ; Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:12:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from haka.fmf.uni-lj.si (haka.fmf.uni-lj.si [193.2.67.18]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k1PBCW2v007902 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:12:33 +0100 Received: from bsn-77-186-71.dsl.siol.net ([193.77.186.71] helo=[192.168.1.101]) by haka.fmf.uni-lj.si with esmtpa (Exim 4.50) id 1FCxLd-00024X-J6 for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:12:31 +0100 From: Andrej Bauer To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:14:01 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.3 References: <43FF2BC9.6030503@studio.baretta.com> <20060224190501.GA27740@fork.recoil.org> <43FF5DA6.6000600@studio.baretta.com> In-Reply-To: <43FF5DA6.6000600@studio.baretta.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200602251214.03353.Andrej.Bauer@andrej.com> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 193.77.186.71 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: Andrej.Bauer@andrej.com Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Question on performance/style issue X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 (built Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:44:12 +0100) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on haka.fmf.uni-lj.si) X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 44003BA0.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; andrej:01 andrej:01 caml-list:01 baretta:01 anil:01 syntax:01 notation:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 programming:03 alessandro:03 compiled:04 style:93 style:93 uses:06 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 Friday 24 February 2006 20:25, Alessandro Baretta wrote: > Anil Madhavapeddy wrote: > >>>x ++ f ++ g ++ h > >> > >>What is the impact of the this programming style on execution > >> performance? 1. It should be easy enough to extend the syntax so that you don't have to worry about it getting compiled away. 2. Mathematica uses notation x // f. Why not use the same? Many people will misunderstand ++ as something coming from C. Andrej