From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC21D55E for ; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 02:39:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j6V0dqNm029738 for ; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 02:39:52 +0200 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA13047 for ; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 02:39:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from wetware.wetware.com (wetware.wetware.com [209.218.58.1]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j6V0dogn029735 for ; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 02:39:51 +0200 Received: from [69.12.155.90] (helo=[10.0.1.5]) by wetware.wetware.com with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dz1rm-0007Xb-5L for caml-list@inria.fr; Sat, 30 Jul 2005 17:39:46 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v733) In-Reply-To: References: <20050727153558.80900.qmail@web30515.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: james woodyatt Subject: Re: [Caml-list] How to do this properly with OCaml? Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 17:39:46 -0700 To: Ocaml Trade X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.733) X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 42EC1DD8.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 42EC1DD6.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; woodyatt:01 jhw:01 wetware:01 caml-list:01 ocaml:01 arrays:01 geometric:01 subset:01 geometric:01 binary:01 heap:01 heap:01 ocaml:01 woodyatt:01 jhw:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On 30 Jul 2005, at 16:33, Thomas Fischbacher wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, David Thomas wrote: >> I'm still curious what numerical algorithm is so desperately in >> need of variable length arrays... > > There are quite some geometric algorithms where you want to process a > subset (of a priori unknown size) of all geometric entities that > satisfy a > certain constraint by decreasing priority. Using a binary heap > implemented > on top of an array often is a reasonable choice there. Yes, but is there ever a case where it would be a reasonable choice to use an extensible array for this instead of simply using a purely functional skew-binomial heap, e.g. [Cf_sbheap] from my OCaml NAE core foundation library? -- j h woodyatt markets are only free to the people who own them.