Using meta-programming is very nice indeed, but until meta-OCaml is
merged into OCaml itself, it will be no use for most OCaml programmers
(at least, those I know of). So it still makes sense to write
alternative stream libraries that do not rely on metaprogramming nor on
features yet to come (effects…). For pure OCaml libraries, there is no
clear winner yet (depends on what API is exposed), Sequence is faster in
most cases but cannot implement zip/merge, BatSeq/Core.Sequence are good
in average and probably the best tradeoff overall, Enum is a bit
complicated but quite comprehensive…

Le Sat, 12 Nov 2016, Oleg a écrit :
> Gabriel,
>
>         Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful message and the
> motivations behind Enum choices. The library and language design was
> the central issue in our paper. We do have a different overall
> approach, which you haven't yet touched. The approach is
> meta-programming.
>
>         It is high-performance community who discovered for themselves
> that the most promising way to increase or maintain performance is by
> meta-programming. It was late Ken Kennedy (of High-Performance Fortran
> fame) who came with telescoping languages and popularized the idea of
> active libraries. It was again Ken Kennedy who coined the phrase
> ``abstraction without guilt''. The references (in old, by now) paper
> make the case that become even clearer by now
>         http://www-rocq.inria.fr/~acohen/publications/CDGHKP06.ps.gz
>
> Thus we can have a very general interface and still very efficient
> implementation. We can have a pure functional, a fully compositional
> interface and a very tangled, imperative implementation with

--
Simon Cruanes

http://weusepgp.info/
key 49AA62B6, fingerprint 949F EB87 8F06 59C6 D7D3  7D8D 4AC0 1D08 49AA 62B6