From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <warren@metaweb.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_NEUTRAL 
	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 94833BBAF
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:58:44 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AocDAD+qkkrQRG8ZgWdsb2JhbACbCAEBFiS7ZoQaBQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,267,1249250400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="45097078"
Received: from mx01.metaweb.com ([208.68.111.25])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with SMTP; 24 Aug 2009 23:58:14 +0200
Received: from zimbra01.corp.sjc1.metaweb.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mx01.metaweb.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 4CE62EE52A
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra01.corp.sjc1.metaweb.com ([172.29.253.13]) by mx01.metaweb.com with ESMTP id YvaqyhIRezIXmVKl for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by zimbra01.corp.sjc1.metaweb.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37DCB160C7D0
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra01.corp.sjc1.metaweb.com
Received: from zimbra01.corp.sjc1.metaweb.com ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (zimbra01.corp.sjc1.metaweb.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id bP4DCvaO1aop for <caml-list@inria.fr>;
	Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from timesink.corp.631h.metaweb.com (timesink.corp.631h.metaweb.com [172.31.20.32])
	by zimbra01.corp.sjc1.metaweb.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B817160C081
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <94AD5806-B6F6-44F7-AA3C-1E63B6C1A722@metaweb.com>
From: Warren Harris <warren@metaweb.com>
To: OCaml <caml-list@inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Subject: lazy vs fun
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:57:19 -0700
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 warren:98 warren:98 int:01 int:01 lazy:02 lazy:02 unit:03 let:03 let:03 perhaps:05 rather:08 fun:08 fun:08 evaluation:09 

Is there any advantage to using lazy evaluation in ocaml rather than  
just using thunks to defer evaluation? E.g.

let x = lazy (3+4)
let y = Lazy.force x

vs:

let x = fun () -> 3+4
let y = x ()

Perhaps it's just that the type int lazy_t is more informative than  
unit -> int?

Warren