From: Christophe Raffalli <christophe.raffalli@univ-savoie.fr>
To: Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com>
Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Parameter evaluation order
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:09:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <430F0669.6050103@univ-savoie.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200508261110.41183.jon@ffconsultancy.com>
Jon Harrop a écrit :
> On Friday 26 August 2005 10:53, Christophe Raffalli wrote:
>
>>This looks strange, because the semicolumn is used both to specify order
>>evaluation left-to-right in sequence and right-to-left in record.
>
>
> I haven't checked but it is probably undefined, rather than right-to-left in
> records.
>
> Semicolons are used in many places in OCaml's grammar. Would you expect the
> members of a list literal to be evaluated left-to-right, for example?
>
> # [print_endline "1"; print_endline "2"];;
> 2
> 1
> - : unit list = [(); ()]
>
yes I would ...
In fact, after though, the only place where evalauation order should be
unspecified or better, specified right-to-left is function application
and all other case (tuple, variants (and therefore list), should be
left-to-right.
Let me explain:
- why function should be right-to-left:
because the syntax is somehow wrong, the argument should come first !
A good way to think about it is when you write the operationnal
semantics of call-by-value
if v is a value then (fun x -> t) v evaluates t[x:=v]
in this sentence we are looking at v first.
Another point: if you use a stack (either to define the semantics or to
implement), the left most argument should be on the top of the stack and
therefore pushed last.
Why are most language left-to-right: because nobody wanted to reverse
the notation of function aplpication :-) (and if you think, the standard
notation for numbers should also be reversed ... and whe should read
from right to left, which is what we do when we do an addition with
paper and pencil)
- why other contructor (tuple, records, variants) should be
left-to-right: because this is the most natural thing to do, and in fact
there is no semantical reason to choose one evaluation order or another
(except for variant constructor if you consider that they are function
like others). (except that they are people around the world that writes
right-to-left or top-to-bottom ... what are the camlp4 guys doing for
this poor people ;-)
- why should the evaluation order be specified: this is needed if you
want to formally reason about programs ... as far as I know. I had like
to find a system where I can prove programs in call-by-value whatever
evaluation order they use ... but I do not know how to do that, without
proving programs for all the possible evaluation order as soon as the
argument have side effect which is too much.
- Yes, this is a pity since you may want the compiler to interleave the
code of the various arguments to fill the pileline. But I think doing
this when the code has no side effect is enough (like with arithmetic
expression in a + b + c, d + e + f).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-08-26 12:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-08-19 22:21 "Márk S. Zoltán"
2005-08-20 9:12 ` [Caml-list] " Alain Frisch
2005-08-26 17:53 ` "Márk S. Zoltán"
2005-08-22 16:50 ` Damien Doligez
2005-08-23 7:12 ` skaller
2005-08-23 11:29 ` Damien Doligez
2005-08-23 13:34 ` Igor Pechtchanski
2005-08-23 19:52 ` Damien Doligez
2005-08-24 1:24 ` Hao-yang Wang
2005-08-24 11:33 ` [Caml-list] " Damien Doligez
2005-08-24 14:39 ` Christophe Raffalli
2005-08-24 15:47 ` Berkeley DB Joel Reymont
2005-08-24 16:08 ` [Caml-list] Re: Parameter evaluation order brogoff
2005-08-24 20:05 ` Christophe Raffalli
2005-08-24 20:25 ` brogoff
2005-08-24 20:53 ` Jon Harrop
[not found] ` <430CE193.9000805@univ-savoie.fr>
2005-08-26 9:53 ` Christophe Raffalli
2005-08-26 10:10 ` Jon Harrop
2005-08-26 12:09 ` Christophe Raffalli [this message]
2005-08-26 12:26 ` Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons
2005-08-26 16:48 ` Christophe Raffalli
2005-08-27 15:33 ` Christophe TROESTLER
2005-08-26 12:36 ` Ville-Pertti Keinonen
2005-08-26 14:17 ` Fernando Alegre
2005-08-26 17:00 ` Christophe Raffalli
2005-08-26 22:58 ` skaller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=430F0669.6050103@univ-savoie.fr \
--to=christophe.raffalli@univ-savoie.fr \
--cc=caml-list@yquem.inria.fr \
--cc=jon@ffconsultancy.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox