From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <bills@wwayneb.com>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CA747F1C3
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 05:40:08 +0100 (CET)
Received-SPF: None (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  bills@wwayneb.com) identity=pra; client-ip=173.201.192.230;
  receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="bills@wwayneb.com";
  x-sender="bills@wwayneb.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  bills@wwayneb.com) identity=mailfrom;
  client-ip=173.201.192.230;
  receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="bills@wwayneb.com";
  x-sender="bills@wwayneb.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@p3plsmtpa07-01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net)
  identity=helo; client-ip=173.201.192.230;
  receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="bills@wwayneb.com";
  x-sender="postmaster@p3plsmtpa07-01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AssAALyUtVCtycDmmWdsb2JhbABFwDgOAQEBAQEICwsHFCeCXX00AkwNCAEBiAmdepEPkCaQewOIXpMwgz2KCA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,175,1355094000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="183541333"
Received: from p3plsmtpa07-01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net ([173.201.192.230])
  by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with SMTP; 28 Nov 2012 05:40:07 +0100
Received: (qmail 5445 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2012 04:40:03 -0000
Received: from unknown (173.26.186.224)
  by p3plsmtpa07-01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (173.201.192.230) with ESMTP; 28 Nov 2012 04:40:03 -0000
Message-ID: <50B595A4.50402@wwayneb.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:40:04 -0500
From: William Smith <bills@wwayneb.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: OCAML <caml-list@inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Validation-by: bills@wwayneb.com
Subject: [Caml-list] List.fold_left vs. Hashtbl.fold

List.fold_left expects the List as the 3rd parameter with the second 
parameter being the initial value.

Hashtbl.fold expects the Hasthbl as the second parameter with the 3rd 
parameter being the initial value... just the opposite of List.fold_left.

Is there a reason for this difference?   I'm having trouble remembering 
which goes which way.   If it's not a historical accident, I'd like to 
have a understanding of why they are different to help me know which is 
which.

Thanks,

Bill