From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ober.14@osu.edu>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 
	autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id F31EBBC6C
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:52:08 +0100 (CET)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aq4HAFt1kEdDWxLC/2dsb2JhbACBV6xQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,217,1199660400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="6291475"
Received: from ip67-91-18-194.z18-91-67.customer.algx.net (HELO server1.bertec.net) ([67.91.18.194])
  by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 18 Jan 2008 18:52:08 +0100
Received: from kuba.bertec.net (kuba.bertec.net [192.168.2.16])
	by server1.bertec.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3929ACDFAD
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:52:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Kuba Ober <ober.14@osu.edu>
To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Strange performances
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:52:06 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20071204.744707)
References: <1200619933.6383.47.camel@benjamin-laptop> <20080118.181206.85503086.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> <4790D9FC.5090108@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4790D9FC.5090108@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200801181252.06298.ober.14@osu.edu>
X-Spam: no; 0.00; segfault:01 ocaml's:01 ocaml's:01 compiler:01 camlers:01 cheers:01 edgar:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 stack:01 caml-list:01 consistent:02 garrigue:03 slightly:03 seems:03 

On Friday 18 January 2008, Edgar Friendly wrote:
> Jacques Garrigue wrote:
> > This is why I sent an erratum. The cause for the segfault was not the
> > array access, but the stack overflow, which occured due to ocaml's
> > peculiar evaluation order.
>
> Is there any case where ocaml's "peculiar evaluation order" results in
> any benefit other than slightly simpler code at the compiler level?  I
> understand that people shouldn't depend on evaluation order, but it
> seems that people fall into this trap often.  And even extremely
> experienced camlers (if you permit this characterization of you) forget
> this behavior.

I think that if you apply principle of least astonishment, things should be 
evaluated left-to-right. Or at least with a consistent rule.

Cheers, Kuba