From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <berenger@riken.jp>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA4807F7C2
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Tue,  4 Feb 2014 02:41:55 +0100 (CET)
Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  berenger@riken.jp) identity=pra; client-ip=134.160.33.161;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="berenger@riken.jp";
  x-sender="berenger@riken.jp"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of
  berenger@riken.jp designates 134.160.33.161 as permitted
  sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=134.160.33.161;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="berenger@riken.jp";
  x-sender="berenger@riken.jp"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible;
  x-record-type="v=spf1"
Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of
  postmaster@postman.riken.jp designates 134.160.33.161 as
  permitted sender) identity=helo; client-ip=134.160.33.161;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="berenger@riken.jp";
  x-sender="postmaster@postman.riken.jp";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Am0BAAhE8FKGoCGhnGdsb2JhbABZwiUBgS0OAQEBAQEICwkJFCiCZEA9FhgDAgECAT8ZCAEBiAGdWbBYF48lhCIEiUeKe4NolV0
X-IPAS-Result: Am0BAAhE8FKGoCGhnGdsb2JhbABZwiUBgS0OAQEBAQEICwkJFCiCZEA9FhgDAgECAT8ZCAEBiAGdWbBYF48lhCIEiUeKe4NolV0
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,776,1384297200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="47673120"
Received: from postman1.riken.jp (HELO postman.riken.jp) ([134.160.33.161])
  by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 04 Feb 2014 02:41:53 +0100
Received: from postman.riken.jp (postman1.riken.jp [127.0.0.1])
	by postman.riken.jp (Postfix) with SMTP id 1F5A02588002
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Tue,  4 Feb 2014 10:41:51 +0900 (JST)
Received: from watson.prg.gsc.riken.jp (ipm04.gsc.riken.go.jp [134.160.83.74])
	by postman.riken.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0923032A0090
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Tue,  4 Feb 2014 10:41:51 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <52F0455E.5040806@riken.jp>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 10:41:50 +0900
From: Francois Berenger <berenger@riken.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2014.2.4.13019
Subject: [Caml-list] is there a runtime cost for this

Hello,

In a .ml file I'd like to write something like this
in order to factorize some code:

let f x y z = [...] some code [...]

module Something = struct
     let g = f
end

module Something_else = struct
     let h = f
end

Is calling Something.g or Something_else.h as efficient
as calling f directly?

-- 
Best regards,
Francois Berenger.