From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id q3JDVuSi019289 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:31:57 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AksFAPISkE/Y5v4vmGdsb2JhbABDgxyCSZgckCqDFiIBAQEBAQgJDRsnggkBAQUjDwEFQAEQCxgCAgUWCwICCQMCAQIBRQYNCAEBiAoBpzyTMIEvjXaBGASIWo0VhXSNPQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,446,1330902000"; d="scan'208";a="154737825" Received: from amout07.alpha-mail.net ([216.230.254.47]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 19 Apr 2012 15:31:56 +0200 Received: from webarc05.alpha-mail.jp (webarc05 [216.230.254.85]) by amout07.alpha-mail.net with ESMTP id q3JDVrpG009654; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:31:53 +0900 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at Alpha-Mail Out Received: from ltsub01.alpha-mail.net (ltsub01 [216.230.254.29]) by webarc05.alpha-mail.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4C13A48076; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:31:48 +0900 (JST) Received: from [192.168.0.110] (196.62.205.61.west.global.crust-r.net [61.205.62.196]) by ltsub01.alpha-mail.net (Alpha-mail) with ESMTP id E1E1E3B8098; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:31:52 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4F9013CD.5040804@itpl.co.jp> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:31:57 +0900 From: Satoshi Ogasawara User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?RGFuaWVsIELDvG56bGk=?= Cc: caml-list@inria.fr References: <4F8D9D0E.1040007@itpl.co.jp> <4F8E1FF4.5070702@itpl.co.jp> <4F8EA91C.3060001@itpl.co.jp> <2B372C89CE4F408688B67B090FA5105C@erratique.ch> <4F8EFC34.7080906@itpl.co.jp> <4F8FD3EB.5050307@itpl.co.jp> <5EE5A4305AC040AABEE680AFA18E0301@erratique.ch> In-Reply-To: <5EE5A4305AC040AABEE680AFA18E0301@erratique.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [ANN] PEC ver. 1.1 (2012/04/19 19:57), Daniel Bünzli wrote: > Le jeudi, 19 avril 2012 à 12:31, Daniel Bünzli a écrit : > If P1 occurs then you start walking back from L, but you don't know where P1 is so you have to walk down every branch until you find P1 and then walk back from there up to L to make the update. > Contrast this with (weak) forward pointers: you just start from P1 and walk *once* up to L. > Is that correct ? It's correct. But the performance can be optimized in future I think. When subscribing a event, we can collect and store information about tree structure. Present implementation discards these information. Best Regards, Ogasawara