From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67BA0BC2F for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:44:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp2.wanadoo.fr (smtp2.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.29]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iAQ8i2Ar005657 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:44:02 +0100 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf0202.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP id 163471C001BB; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:44:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from nono (ARouen-106-1-19-12.w81-49.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.49.250.12]) by mwinf0202.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP id A881A1C001B2; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:44:01 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <001601c4d394$40b15300$0cfa3151@mshome.net> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fr=C3=A9d=C3=A9ric_Gava?= To: Cc: References: <75E02BC8-3EEA-11D9-A6E2-00039310CAE8@inria.fr> <004f01c4d2fd$b87d6140$b18780d9@mshome.net> <1101398012.9291.48.camel@pelican.wigram> <008001c4d319$693f0f40$b18780d9@mshome.net> <1101425691.9291.69.camel@pelican.wigram> Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Objective Caml release 3.08.2 Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:45:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 41A6ECD2.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; gava:01 gava:01 caml-list:01 ocaml:01 ric:98 ric:98 functions:01 caml:02 tend:02 guess:02 objective:02 frederic:03 parallel:04 interface:05 fold:06 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.2 required=5.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: ** > So I would tend to think it may well be worthwhile adding > an unordered set to Ocaml. I guess some operations may > change from O(log N) to O(1), or from O(N log N) to just O(N), > eg fold. Good Idea. In this case, with the same interface (but not the same specification), it would be easier to optimize some functions (in my case, I thinks about parallel implementation) Frédéric Gava