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 AAA11385 for caml-redistribution; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 00:11:40 +0100 (MET)
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 KAA13804 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 10:53:05 +0100 (MET)
Received: from alarcos.uclm.es (alarcos.uclm.es [161.67.26.25])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA29508
	for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 10:53:04 +0100 (MET)
Received: from ind-cr.uclm.es (IDENT:jjgarcia@[161.67.37.202])
	by alarcos.uclm.es (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id KAA12553
	for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 10:53:03 +0100
Sender: weis
Message-ID: <369DBDBC.EA1CBE02@ind-cr.uclm.es>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 10:49:48 +0100
From: Juan Jose Garcia Ripoll <jjgarcia@ind-cr.uclm.es>
Organization: Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i686)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Caml list <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>
Subject: The way Ocaml inlines
References: <001001be3f70$ec08a870$210148bf@dylan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

David McClain wrote:
> 
> >(particularly if you inline it).
> 
> Is there a way to explicitly inline functions, other than cut and paste?

By watching OCaml work, and studying the compiler, I've seen it inline
many small functions, even when they are defined in other modules. I
pretty much like this, but I find only one minor inconvenience about the
way OCaml inlines. It is this one: say that you have

	module Foo = struct
	let ap_succ f n = f (n +. 1.0)
	let test a =
	   let my_f x = cos x
	   in ap_succ my_f a
	end

After inlining, the result is not a sort of
	let test a = cos (n +. 1.0)
but something like
	let my_f x = cos x
	let test a = generic_apply my_f (a +. 1.0)
It is even worse if `my_f' uses, for instance, `a', because then a
closure is built, which would not be necessary. I think this could be
solved by making the `inliner' a bit smarter and re-inlining the
functions that are applied. This would make it attractive and efficient
to write small useful functions in separate modules.

Regards
	Juanjo

-- 
Juan Jose Garcia Ripoll		www: http://www.arrakis.es/~worm
Dpto. de Matematicas		job: jjgarcia@ind-cr.uclm.es
E.T.S.I. Industriales		home: worm@arrakis.es
Univ. de Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real E-13071 (Spain)