From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <steph@glondu.net>
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 29647BBAF
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:06:41 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAHSrkkpeFxRU/2dsb2JhbADXIYQaBQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,267,1249250400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="45097503"
Received: from glyptal.glondu.net ([94.23.20.84])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 25 Aug 2009 00:06:41 +0200
Received: from [10.198.42.2] (unknown [10.198.42.2])
	by glyptal.glondu.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A69A859E75;
	Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:08:28 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4A930EF0.3050900@glondu.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:06:40 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?U3TDqXBoYW5lIEdsb25kdQ==?= <steph@glondu.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090103)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Warren Harris <warren@metaweb.com>
Cc: OCaml <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] lazy vs fun
References: <94AD5806-B6F6-44F7-AA3C-1E63B6C1A722@metaweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <94AD5806-B6F6-44F7-AA3C-1E63B6C1A722@metaweb.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0
OpenPGP: id=FCE03DAA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 cheers:01 phane:98 steph:98 warren:98 phane:98 caml-list:01 int:01 int:01 lazy:02 lazy:02 unit:03 pattern:04 perhaps:05 matching:05 

Warren Harris a =C3=A9crit :
> Is there any advantage to using lazy evaluation in ocaml rather than
> just using thunks to defer evaluation? [...]

Two things I can think of right now: they are evaluated only once (even
if you call Lazy.force several times), and you can do pattern matching
with them.

> Perhaps it's just that the type int lazy_t is more informative than uni=
t -> int?

That one, too.


Cheers,

--=20
St=C3=A9phane