From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 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 E827FBC6B for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:11:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ptb-relay02.plus.net (ptb-relay02.plus.net [212.159.14.213]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l5SDB8vv032002 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:11:08 +0200 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=beast.local) by ptb-relay02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1I3tm7-00063A-GW for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:11:07 +0100 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The Implicit Accumulator: a design pattern using optional arguments Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:05:22 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <200706271314.35134.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <200706281232.01643.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <4683B0C7.7060201@functionality.de> In-Reply-To: <4683B0C7.7060201@functionality.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200706281405.22424.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4683B36C.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml:01 frog:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 rec:01 clearer:01 caml-list:01 lisp:01 nums:01 idiomatic:02 idiomatic:02 implicit:03 let:03 let:03 On Thursday 28 June 2007 13:59:51 Thomas Fischbacher wrote: > Jon Harrop wrote: > > I would write: > > > > let rec work sum = function > > > > | 0 -> sum > > | todo -> work (sum + todo) (todo - 1) > > > > let sum_nums n = work 0 n > > > > because it is shorter, clearer, 65% faster and it is idiomatic ML rather > > than idiomatic Lisp. > > You are still evading the issue: you nevertheless pass multiple arguments to > a continuation, rather than consing a return value. Continuations and consing have nothing to do with this. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. The OCaml Journal http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_journal/?e