From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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=none 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 E0B15BC6B for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:35:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.177]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l5SDZDgE006440 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:35:13 +0200 Received: from [141.84.136.30] (helo=[152.78.96.56]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu3) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0MKxQS-1I3u9M1IRG-00088E; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:35:13 +0200 Message-ID: <4683B91E.8070908@functionality.de> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:35:26 +0100 From: Thomas Fischbacher User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060607 Debian/1.7.12-1.2 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Qu=F4c_Peyrot?= Cc: Jon Harrop , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The Implicit Accumulator: a design pattern using optional arguments References: <200706271314.35134.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <200706281232.01643.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <58DA3107-BFD2-4ADF-A903-2CB63C6D29C2@gmail.com> <200706281308.13958.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <70216A52-8710-4000-8F69-CE1D67AC54F7@lrde.epita.fr> In-Reply-To: <70216A52-8710-4000-8F69-CE1D67AC54F7@lrde.epita.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19pmSqCc/SlUzqBpNcffgFGdTz+UOXYq5SmzzZ kjzlSSsgcAEQzma+N5zIwC2midGrOqJMHcQX0q1IGz18Qe+ZUZ LrpOFaM21rSbcOi6yGWTw== X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4683B911.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 compiler:01 compiler:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 behaviour:01 implicit:03 pattern:04 dev:04 enlighten:04 accumulator:05 branches:06 behave:06 arguments:07 strange:08 Quôc Peyrot wrote: >> loop. So this branches twice per loop. > > > That is so strange! #@$!? > Can someone enlighten us? Don't worry: this presumably is just some strange behaviour of the present version of the OCaml compiler. One presumably should expect neither past nor future versions to behave in the same way. Yes, it is strange. And maybe the compiler dev team should look into that... -- best regards, Thomas Fischbacher tf@functionality.de