From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id q2CID5xm017082 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:13:05 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApQBAF47Xk/RVdS0kGdsb2JhbABDtU8IIgEBAQEJCQ0HFAQjggkBAQEWAiwBGx4DEhANUAERAQUBNQgah2ibfIJdCot4gnGFET+IdAEFC41UgyIElUyORT2EBQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,570,1325458800"; d="scan'208";a="135653331" Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com ([209.85.212.180]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 12 Mar 2012 19:12:59 +0100 Received: by wibhm17 with SMTP id hm17so3727493wib.9 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:12:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=vWtPOE9IshELPDXJUhgJ93EmCqwwA1D7bs+BVVy3pIw=; b=Hpuz6ncea0QFd+ElYd1xvf93BCPFGD+/ECYnjI11vHqnbKD30p20up3Xvuwxly+owg EZebO5ne/Vjb1vpLQJDlo+6pJDKSPG+14vAZsJ/dZ0JDLB8bBNMplVaDMJVcOWuVWeKj SZ+38fPGzGFBDQA1VRIHWauqi1IKifqVLXwiyww39jSIEayVr9o1ISxcyZqqOrYl6tCI /PXhPTJKRnljmPtGSFbt7Kj6lqi1NYzZnplVQG30AzEoUGBM+jmnIg09gp39tj/ts6Xa wRMwHQ50HSAauJY2q43KQ8LNklWNuJ3ElsrCXJt7QB2u9VLUlX+oKV92KVsuRTc6uWlG kEjw== Received: by 10.180.103.35 with SMTP id ft3mr250429wib.0.1331575979298; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:12:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.99.67 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:12:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Lukasz Stafiniak Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:12:39 +0100 Message-ID: To: caml-list@inria.fr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [Caml-list] Association lists On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Xavier Leroy wrote: > > Resignedly awaiting a CVE about association lists, Is using association lists a lot "poor style"? Wouldn't it be better to use maps -- which would make it possible to throw in different implementations to tune performance?