From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0E10BC6B for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:19:36 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah4FAEfsmkfUnw7Wnmdsb2JhbACCNo1yAQEBAQEGBAYHChibZg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,254,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="7263566" Received: from ptb-relay03.plus.net ([212.159.14.214]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 26 Jan 2008 17:19:36 +0100 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=beast.local) by ptb-relay03.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1JInkl-0006s3-KE for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:19:35 +0000 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Concatenation of static strings? Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:13:51 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <20080119143259.46752d11.mle+ocaml@mega-nerd.com> <53c655920801190255p71346ac9ka45adf0e1cef2d17@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801261613.51858.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Plusnet-Relay: 4304b3ae1db788919b2cb79ca3110fff X-Spam: no; 0.00; bug:01 bug:01 literals:01 literals:01 frog:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 strings:01 strings:01 string:02 static:03 static:03 clarify:04 thread-safe:05 scoped:06 On Thursday 24 January 2008 23:02:48 Ashish Agarwal wrote: > I was hoping there would be some follow up discussion on the code below, > but haven't seen anything yet. Can someone please clarify why this is not > considered a bug (or is it). This is not considered a bug. String literals are static but array literals are not. > Given that s is locally scoped within f, I do not see why f returns > different answers. A static local remains the same between calls (so it is not thread-safe). This has been discussed before several times. The reason given more making strings static is performance. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e