From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <Alain.Frisch@inria.fr>
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 1B60CBBAF
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Thu, 18 May 2006 22:21:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtp2-g19.free.fr (smtp2-g19.free.fr [212.27.42.28])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k4IKL0le029729
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Thu, 18 May 2006 22:21:00 +0200
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (rke75-3-82-229-183-156.fbx.proxad.net [82.229.183.156])
	by smtp2-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B8A1731F7;
	Thu, 18 May 2006 22:21:00 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <446CD72B.6040700@inria.fr>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 22:20:59 +0200
From: Alain Frisch <Alain.Frisch@inria.fr>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Brown <caml-list2@davidb.org>
Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] compiler bug?
References: <20060517231426.30289.qmail@web32203.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<446CABCA.8000906@inria.fr> <446CB021.6000009@mcmaster.ca>	<446CB2EE.1080102@inria.fr> <446CCB8E.8080601@mcmaster.ca> <20060518200732.GA31619@old.davidb.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060518200732.GA31619@old.davidb.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 446CD72C.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)!
X-Spam: no; 0.00; frisch:01 frisch:01 compiler:01 bug:01 compiler:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 programming:03 languages:03 languages:03 alain:03 alain:03 size:95 exponential:06 exponential: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

David Brown wrote:
> For something like a compiler, worse case behavior is very important.

All the decent programming languages I'm using nowadays have a type
system whose worse case complexity is exponential in the size of the
source. No compiler can be better than exponential. Do you think I
should stop using these languages?

-- Alain