From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id XAA04406; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 23:20:55 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 XAA04099 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 23:20:54 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail6.speakeasy.net (mail6.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.206]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i6ULKqSH017802 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 23:20:53 +0200 Received: (qmail 27054 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2004 21:20:51 -0000 Received: from shell2.speakeasy.net ([69.17.110.71]) (envelope-sender ) by mail6.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 30 Jul 2004 21:20:51 -0000 Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:20:51 -0700 (PDT) From: brogoff To: james woodyatt cc: Ocaml Trade Subject: Re: [Caml-list] kaplan-okasaki-tarjan deque (was "looping recursion") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <16646.64470.304530.264731@soggy.deldotd.com> <16647.5177.849829.421587@soggy.deldotd.com> <4107544C.4040502@baretta.com> <410898F0.6030804@baretta.com> <41097D53.5050607@baretta.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 410ABBB4.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; brogoff:01 brogoff:01 caml-list:01 deque:01 recursion:01 woodyatt:01 catenable:01 deques:01 emailed:99 workarounds:01 implementors:01 ocaml:01 speakeasy:01 ops:01 laziness:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, james woodyatt wrote: > On 30 Jul 2004, at 10:07, brogoff wrote: > > > > I would like to see an implementation of the catenable deques only > > using simple list ops (not laziness) described by Kaplan and Tarjan, > > in OCaml. > > Sure. Here is the basic implementation I did for performance > comparisons. Thanks. I emailed you back a version with the magic gone, using the recursive module extension to bulldozer over your abuse of the type system ;-). It's the least offensive (IMO of course) of the current workarounds. I wonder if the implementors can tell us if there is any hope that we'll see some better solutions in the near future? BTW, what did your comparisons tell you? -- Brian ------------------- 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