From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82])
	by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id q0KEgJcU011099
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:42:19 +0100
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AikCAJZ8GU/AbSoIe2dsb2JhbABDhQSmWYIlIgEBFiYEIYFyAQEFI1YQCwkFCgICJgICFBgxiBGmbZFjE4EciWEzYwSNVodCkk0
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,542,1320620400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="140751834"
Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8])
  by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 20 Jan 2012 15:42:14 +0100
X-Envelope-From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de
Received: from first (e178003192.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.3.192])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Debian-1) with ESMTP id q0KEgDaI014570
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);
	Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:42:13 +0100
Received: by first (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 06D65154036C; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:42:12 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:42:12 +0100
From: oliver <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>
To: Edgar Friendly <thelema314@gmail.com>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Message-ID: <20120120144212.GB3591@siouxsie>
References: <CAFrFfuEk3-Y7Gd4aSp7-xXWyceaBZCVtWUKg9AD8DoZXgTVEoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120120093834.GB1870@siouxsie>
 <4F197343.8070704@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4F197343.8070704@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang_at_IN-Berlin_e.V. on 192.109.42.8
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] is there a more concise way to write this?

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 08:59:31AM -0500, Edgar Friendly wrote:
> On 01/20/2012 04:38 AM, oliver wrote:
> >More concise does not always mean better readable or more performant.
> >You apply the same kind of selection for both values.
> 
> I can't measure readability, but I did throw together a quick
> benchmark to test the different methods.  Please take no offense at
> this - I'm sure that the responses were headed much more towards
> readability than performance,

Thats not offending, the result is fine for me. :-)

I preferred the pattern-match version, because I like
things to be displayed in tables. ;-)

My version (option type and folding on lists) you did not implemented, but
maybe it would have been my work to do that.
But I liked the pattern macthing way.

That it also is the fastest way, is a fine result. :-)

I hope you used more than one call of the function and
used average / stddev on your values to get reliable results...

I don't know your Bench-module.
Where is it from?

Ciao,
   Oliver