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 discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7194BC69 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:54:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pih-relay04.plus.net (pih-relay04.plus.net [212.159.14.131]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l7E0sB2N029045 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:54:11 +0200 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=beast.local) by pih-relay04.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1IJzM1-0006Bp-Bi for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Sat, 11 Aug 2007 23:22:41 +0100 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Order of evaluation when constructing record values Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 23:13:59 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <6806cf750708111056v19107705p288e0b0bb152ef63@mail.gmail.com> <6806cf750708111115w3c3170abj3a4096ed95376222@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6806cf750708111115w3c3170abj3a4096ed95376222@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200708112313.59849.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 46C0FD33.005 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; unspecified:01 ocaml:01 byte:01 ocaml:01 frog:98 wrote:01 compilers:01 caml-list:01 differs:01 declaration:02 native:03 constructing:04 guess:04 seem:08 evaluation:09 On Saturday 11 August 2007 19:15:21 Jeff Meister wrote: > I seem to have answered my own question by playing around. It appears > that the order of evaluation is last-to-first and based on the order > of the fields in the type declaration, not in the value construction. > Oh well. I guess it's let-bindings for me. Evaluation order is typically unspecified in OCaml and sometimes differs between the byte/native compilers. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. OCaml for Scientists http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/?e