From: "Harrison, John R" <johnh@ichips.intel.com>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Cc: "Harrison, John R" <johnh@ichips.intel.com>
Subject: RE: [Caml-list] @, List.append, and tail recursion
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:58:04 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <FD2423AA68A7D511A5A20002A50729E12C119C@orsmsx115.jf.intel.com> (raw)
How about the following policy?
Don't place any limit on stack growth
The stack, like the heap, should be capable of expanding to
fill all available memory. I don't know much about the OS issues
involved in stack extension, but some such policy seems preferable
to building in a hard limit.
Users would then be free to write relatively inefficient and
stack-hungry recursive functions, and at least the implementation
would do its best to carry recursions as far as possible. The only
reason I can see for placing a limit on the stack size is that users
become aware of trivially looping recursions more quickly. But this
doesn't seem a particularly strong argument.
Since I sometimes use non-tail-recursive functions on lists, I often
start my OCaml code with the following line:
Gc.set { (Gc.get()) with Gc.stack_limit = 16777216 };; (* Up the stack
size *)
so that my program doesn't die when occasionally dealing with longish
lists, while being simple and efficient for the common case of short
ones. Of course, if this balance were different, I might use another
data structure and/or alternative algorithms.
John.
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
next reply other threads:[~2003-01-31 20:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-01-31 19:58 Harrison, John R [this message]
2003-01-31 21:04 ` Brian Hurt
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-01-31 22:27 Harrison, John R
2003-01-31 17:32 Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons
2003-01-24 15:35 Andrew Kennedy
2003-01-30 1:44 ` brogoff
2003-01-30 9:57 ` Christophe Raffalli
2003-01-30 16:03 ` Brian Hurt
2003-01-31 10:33 ` Mattias Waldau
2003-01-24 0:48 Brian Hurt
2003-01-30 18:10 ` Olivier Andrieu
2003-01-30 19:46 ` Brian Hurt
2003-01-30 20:52 ` Olivier Andrieu
2003-01-30 21:57 ` Brian Hurt
2003-01-31 2:16 ` james woodyatt
2003-01-31 17:05 ` Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons
2003-01-31 19:52 ` Brian Hurt
2003-01-31 21:34 ` Issac Trotts
2003-01-31 17:13 ` Brian Hurt
2003-01-31 17:42 ` brogoff
2003-01-31 19:18 ` Russ Ross
2003-01-31 19:32 ` Alexander V. Voinov
2003-02-01 2:30 ` brogoff
2003-01-31 23:12 ` Issac Trotts
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=FD2423AA68A7D511A5A20002A50729E12C119C@orsmsx115.jf.intel.com \
--to=johnh@ichips.intel.com \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).