From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id AAA26556; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:10:17 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA25685 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:10:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from jetspin.drizzle.com (jetspin.drizzle.com [216.162.192.5]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i9KMAEsX006580 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:10:16 +0200 Received: from greything.gak.com (mist55.drizzle.com [216.162.215.55]) by jetspin.drizzle.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i9KMA3Z2021078; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:10:04 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.2.20041020150621.032312b0@ofserver.org> X-Sender: (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:10:09 -0700 To: brogoff , Caml List From: Greg K Subject: Re: [Caml-list] About Obj (was Recursive lists) In-Reply-To: References: <00F89380-1BA2-11D9-B4CE-000A958FF2FE@wetware.com> <41669437.3010201@yahoo.it> <4166A395.70301@yahoo.fr> <4166DC42.3090602@baretta.com> <16746.15832.409677.764564@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <416A8CDA.7060407@univ-savoie.fr> <00F89380-1BA2-11D9-B4CE-000A958FF2FE@wetware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4176E246.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 gcaml:01 gcaml:01 furuse:01 brogoff:01 woodyatt:01 38,:01 raffalli:01 filliatre:01 sensibly:01 immutable:01 extlib:01 workarounds:01 recursion:01 bug:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk GCaml? Are you saying that the GCaml extensions are in the INRIA queue for some future version of OCaml? I was under the impression that it had fallen off the active list when Jun Furuse left for Tokyo. Is that not true? Greg At 09:46 AM 10/11/2004, brogoff wrote: >On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, james woodyatt wrote: > > On 11 Oct 2004, at 06:38, Christophe Raffalli wrote: > > > Jean-Christophe Filliatre wrote [quite sensibly]: > > >> > > >> [...] > > >> This shouldn't be advised, and not even posted on this list. > > > > > > And how do you write a tail recursive map doing only one structure > > > traversal (which is important with the penalty for memory access) on > > > immutable list without the Obj module ? > > > > By using a more appropriate data structure, e.g. a lazy list. It's a > > pay-me-now-or-pay-me-later sort of game you're playing here. > >Count me among those entirely unswayed by this. > >You could also respectfully request that the implementors provide a safe >way to get this well known optimization WITHOUT having to resort to Obj >usage, and, until it is provided, use the safe solution provided a few times >already (and used in ExtLib I believe). > >When I asked one of the implementors about this, I received the response that >this would be nice to have but not at the head of the queue in terms of >upcoming desireable features. That seems like a reasonable response, >considering >that there are a number of not so bad workarounds, including use of Obj. I'd >rather have GCaml extensions sooner anyways... > >I think Clean now provides some solution for the tail recursion modulo cons >stuff. Anyone know other language/implementations which do? > >-- Brian > >------------------- >To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr >Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ >Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners