From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <san.vu-ngoc@ujf-grenoble.fr>
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 concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 252B7BC0B
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:46:00 +0100 (CET)
Received: from amazone2.ujf-grenoble.fr (amazone2.ujf-grenoble.fr [152.77.2.202])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l0LCjxGN016810
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:45:59 +0100
Received: from tana2.ujf-grenoble.fr (tana2.ujf-grenoble.fr [152.77.24.22])
	by amazone2.ujf-grenoble.fr (8.13.7/8.13.7/Configured  by JE 21 07 2006) with ESMTP id l0LCjxE7089466
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:45:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1])
	by tana2.ujf-grenoble.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F5EA250423
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:45:59 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Scanned on tana2.ujf-grenoble.fr
Received: from tana2.ujf-grenoble.fr ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (tana2.ujf-grenoble.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 87U-4-l0tw7R for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>;
	Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:45:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: from tibre2.ujf-grenoble.fr (tibre2.ujf-grenoble.fr [152.77.24.10])
	by tana2.ujf-grenoble.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6197D25041C
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:45:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ifapp1.ujf-grenoble.fr (mozart.ujf-grenoble.fr [193.54.241.5])
	by tibre2.ujf-grenoble.fr (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l0LCjxqk044691
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:45:59 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from san.vu-ngoc@ujf-grenoble.fr)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([::ffff:193.54.241.13])
  (TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA)
  by fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr with esmtp; Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:45:58 +0100
  id 0000F18B.45B36086.00003C54
Message-ID: <45B36075.5000608@ujf-grenoble.fr>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:45:41 +0100
From: Vu Ngoc San <san.vu-ngoc@ujf-grenoble.fr>
User-Agent: IceDove 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061220)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Caml Mailing List <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>
Subject: function definition
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 45B36087.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)!
X-Spam: no; 0.00; binop:01 binop:01 match:02 match:02 defining:02 let:03 let:03 efficient:07 definition:07 mean:08 function:08 function:08 fun:08 fun:08 typically:08 

I'm sure this is a basic question:

what is the difference between these ways of defining a function, and 
what is the most efficient (I mean for the resulting function f = binop 
o f1 f2, which typically will be called x*1000 times)

type operator = Plus | Minus;;


let binop1 o f1 f2 =
   fun x -> match o with
	| Plus -> (f1 x) +. (f2 x)
	| Minus -> (f1 x) -. (f2 x)

let binop2 o f1 f2 =
   match o with
	| Plus -> fun x -> (f1 x) +. (f2 x)
	| Minus -> fun x -> (f1 x) -. (f2 x)

let binop3 o f1 f2 =
   let op = match o with
	| Plus ->  (+.)
	| Minus -> (-.) in
	fun x -> op (f1 x) (f2 x)

let binop4 o f1 f2 =
   fun x ->
     let op = match o with
	| Plus ->  (+.)
	| Minus -> (-.) in
       	op (f1 x) (f2 x)

Thanks for your expertise !

San