From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA12099 for caml-red; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 18:48:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA08626 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:08:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mrwall.kal.com (mrwall.kal.com [194.193.14.236]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id e9CE8Sf21403 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:08:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mrwall.kal.com [194.193.14.236] (HELO localhost) by mrwall.kal.com (AltaVista Mail V2.0J/2.0J BL25J listener) id 0000_0050_39e5_c5fc_534f; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:09:00 +0100 Received: from somewhere by smtpxd Message-ID: <3145774E67D8D111BE6E00C0DF418B6631C1E8@nt.kal.com> From: Dave Berry To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: RE: Undefined evaluation order: define it for constructors ? Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:10:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr Map is a function that really can be evaluated in parallel. There is a project at Heriot-Watt university that translates pure SML programs to run on a parallel processor. Array.map can potentially be run in parallel on SIMD machines too. So there is an argument for not specifying the order of traversal of these functions (although this need not affect the language definition). Dave. -----Original Message----- From: Hugo Herbelin [mailto:Hugo.Herbelin@inria.fr] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:27 PM To: garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: Undefined evaluation order: define it for constructors ? [Excerpt] It is sometimes useful to do side-effects with "List.map" (or "Array.map"): it leads to code more readable than if using "fold_left". I'd be happy if the evaluation order of "map" in the interface were specified, as it is the case (for a good reason) for the "iter" functional.