From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.0 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 mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E68DBC6B for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2007 22:28:55 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAK5fNEfAXQInh2dsb2JhbACPAgIBCAop X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,397,1188770400"; d="scan'208";a="5637156" Received: from concorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.39]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 09 Nov 2007 22:28:55 +0100 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id lA9LSsns014942 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2007 22:28:54 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAACZgNEdIDszjh2dsb2JhbACPAgIBCAQEExE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,397,1188770400"; d="scan'208";a="19125024" Received: from qb-out-0506.google.com ([72.14.204.227]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 09 Nov 2007 22:28:53 +0100 Received: by qb-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id a16so2015631qbd for ; Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:28:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=xw+ijlRhkgibACY0Ye+Y+BPqzM+TNZZTNxQkKvceAZQ=; b=nO5IKa86CqOtwGqDODG0JNNiP4dEW+ks3c9wwBAK3WctYvUSB8ASJr5z41n7HISHrbMuZUOJvOvw+gARW+ANiv6mIXTzdm1kZ7GO/Gnf7YbLNn4UNpzjv0oRAZii19s3TJbGppqHX+SCGVF6N6uxmHU6MfdXoA/He+5g/xwrn7g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=aBZYRB0DUxJ8iqQxqf60nMEEhw7nG0VEGpOakmxfnEP3BwLaOBl5jT4B550Lc7vMhYS85e/6z0T4bBt4foSyLrGwaqCCxBcNOrDCLbA81IUaA38Syk2M+T7gopiWjowMnAEE9wDMsjcChjc70uPPyTKr6gl6NqjbqEC5GaSq7/k= Received: by 10.142.178.13 with SMTP id a13mr920395wff.1194643731580; Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:28:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.115.3 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Nov 2007 13:28:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <9d3ec8300711091328p7e7f0760tbd6c29f7fb975b21@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 16:28:50 -0500 From: "Till Varoquaux" To: "Ralph Douglass" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] cost to let rec? Cc: "Caml List" In-Reply-To: <71767b800711091320h5d14afb8qc614fb4f1951ed06@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <71767b800711091320h5d14afb8qc614fb4f1951ed06@mail.gmail.com> X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4734D116.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; inlined:01 afaik:01 compiler:01 beginner's:01 ocaml:01 bug:01 beginners:01 wrote:01 rec:01 rec:01 compile:01 typechecking:01 caml-list:01 caml-list:01 functions:01 On Nov 9, 2007 4:20 PM, Ralph Douglass wrote: > Is there any cost to defining a function with "let rec" instead of just > "let"? A slightly longer compile time or something? I'm just curious. Typechecking can indeed be longer, also reccursive functions are never inlined (and, AFAIK, the compiler considers all function defined via let rec as reccursive) > > -- > Ralph > _______________________________________________ > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: > http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list > Archives: http://caml.inria.fr > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs > > Till -- http://till-varoquaux.blogspot.com/