From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <thelema314@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.4 required=5.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL 
	autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 441BFBC6C
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:55:30 +0100 (CET)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAADppkEfRVYT7kGdsb2JhbACQFAEBAQEHBAQJChEHlSGHdg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,217,1199660400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="21483747"
Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.251])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 18 Jan 2008 17:55:29 +0100
Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b15so252046ana.102
        for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:55:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=M73VEPJE9GW16PmfPpj8oTayYYob+GZilYBi5vNBh5A=;
        b=J64VSbugGLWR41Kw056sPiS0Tq2hkWbo7c0BppKV+0kMpHjWbr5CSHowv1D35IUBXjWP9smaO+IfmQkXqUjhIRmJ81FgheMgzLA+q9cBfJ7ecJVZF2uITr+tW/ubWdIslw/94pf86TvcErpKtUGgGfJzw2agbqESew4amMhM5ps=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=b9AZhaNXffoDVj5ar9+dtcbA9bSQwoynR8KpttOgFPgoeO7chEe4kHXrEAFsMDOkpHT5EobUpst50iWkM9nR3wnmhOblabWLBwviKbXg9qM5kXEKuhd2s3txKrwu8Hx/GpEwiTTgppzN6zifB14xswEZHmRNG3NQmMNuGVnc670=
Received: by 10.100.216.3 with SMTP id o3mr7539318ang.28.1200675328828;
        Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:55:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?192.168.0.14? ( [71.149.129.152])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 8sm3676149hsp.19.2008.01.18.08.55.26
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
        Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:55:27 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4790D9FC.5090108@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:55:24 -0600
From: Edgar Friendly <thelema314@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
Cc: till.varoquaux@gmail.com, caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Strange performances
References: <1200619933.6383.47.camel@benjamin-laptop>	<20080118.111503.185813743.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>	<9d3ec8300801172339j38bf734dm5b84f951a4342188@mail.gmail.com> <20080118.181206.85503086.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <20080118.181206.85503086.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam: no; 0.00; segfault:01 ocaml's:01 ocaml's:01 compiler:01 camlers:01 edgar:98 wrote:01 stack:01 caml-list:01 garrigue:03 slightly:03 seems:03 jacques:03 overflow:03 simpler:05 

Jacques Garrigue wrote:
> 
> This is why I sent an erratum. The cause for the segfault was not the
> array access, but the stack overflow, which occured due to ocaml's
> peculiar evaluation order.

Is there any case where ocaml's "peculiar evaluation order" results in
any benefit other than slightly simpler code at the compiler level?  I
understand that people shouldn't depend on evaluation order, but it
seems that people fall into this trap often.  And even extremely
experienced camlers (if you permit this characterization of you) forget
this behavior.

E.