From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E40DBC8B for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 17:52:41 +0100 (CET) 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 j14GqfQJ003476 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 17:52:41 +0100 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 RAA30449 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 17:52:40 +0100 (MET) Received: from first.in-berlin.de (dialin-145-254-052-111.arcor-ip.net [145.254.52.111]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j14GqdKW003473 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 17:52:40 +0100 Received: by first.in-berlin.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id DB626A749E; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 17:52:40 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 17:52:40 +0100 From: Oliver Bandel To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Estimating the size of the ocaml community Message-ID: <20050204165240.GE728@first.in-berlin.de> References: <20050204.111102.71086746.oandrieu@nerim.net> <005501c50aaa$b35d9560$0100a8c0@mshome.net> <20050204121505.GA31752@furbychan.cocan.org> <23368.192.168.0.1.1107521496.squirrel@gps.dynxs.de> <20050204134304.GC19985@furbychan.cocan.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050204134304.GC19985@furbychan.cocan.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4203A859.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4203A857.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; oliver:01 bandel:01 oliver:01 in-berlin:01 caml-list:01 ocaml:01 wrote:01 ocaml:01 ocaml's:01 ocaml's:01 ocaml-core:01 ...:98 ...:98 module:03 correctly:04 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 01:43:04PM +0000, Richard W. M. Jones wrote: [...] > Actually, I wouldn't want to change lists. Those currently have a tag > = 0, and it would important to leave those untouched for exactly the > reason you described. [...] Some months ago I googled for Ocaml ans lists (or something similar) and found a paper on OCaml's list implementation, compared to "vlists" (whatever a vlist may be). I didn't read the paper completely, but at a glance - if I remember correctly -, the vlists would be about 10 times faster than OCaml's current list-implementation... ... why not re-implementing the Lists as those vlists? (Maybe as a module, if it is too much effort to change the OCaml-core) Ciao, Oliver