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=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8377EBC69 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 14:32:02 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAJ4oA0fAXQInemdsb2JhbACOOAEBCQo X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,224,1188770400"; d="scan'208";a="17237329" Received: from concorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.39]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 03 Oct 2007 14:32:02 +0200 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l93CW1Sp019748 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 14:32:01 +0200 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,224,1188770400"; d="scan'208";a="2324179" Received: from yquem.inria.fr ([128.93.8.37]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 03 Oct 2007 14:32:01 +0200 Received: by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix, from userid 25991) id 86144BC69; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 14:32:01 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 14:32:01 +0200 From: Daniel de Rauglaudre To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Locally-polymorphic exceptions [was: folding over a file] Message-ID: <20071003123201.GA3833@yquem.inria.fr> References: <20071003083529.40DA2A99F@Adric.metnet.fnmoc.navy.mil> <20071003114832.GB23824@yquem.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 47038BC1.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; rauglaudre:01 rauglaudre:01 0200,:01 wrote:01 exception:01 caml-list:01 exceptions:01 daniel:04 daniel:04 inria:06 inria:06 wed:06 suggested:07 file:11 pauillac:12 Hi, On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 02:19:56PM +0200, kirillkh wrote: > But then someone suggested using a second exception instead, which > is better performance-wise [...] Is that been checked ? And the two implementations tested ? What are the results, in time ? -- Daniel de Rauglaudre http://pauillac.inria.fr/~ddr/