From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82])
	by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id q0KE5ekG008404
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:05:40 +0100
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgECAGx0GU/RVaG2kGdsb2JhbABDgw2Bd6h1CCIBAQEBCQkNBxQEIYFyAQEBBBICDxUIARscAgMMBgULDQICBRYLAgIJAwIBAgEREQEFARwGAQwIAQEeoyUKiyJIgm+EdT+IcQIFC4EkiWGBFgSIPIxdhVWBN4cEPYQc
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,542,1320620400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="140742448"
Received: from mail-gx0-f182.google.com ([209.85.161.182])
  by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 20 Jan 2012 15:05:27 +0100
Received: by ggki1 with SMTP id i1so350123ggk.27
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:05:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=BvOatumT/vSZ1N8T0w+9X1gmuTBwfumRPiP1U71LnLA=;
        b=lmGTODA2BCrn0yVOjjm85FCGoa8L7nlrUI95O1X06wcaYn1EZdKmDJrY0YQ++Rem73
         vRGb1+7ko91SNnh4ivtEdd9cIatAHD0d6Rkf6gmIinaDWunQtFS2In4L9CTULXC9Waiy
         7Z5CjE9qM1maHCZlDSIgyBwKukU7lk66P5N68=
Received: by 10.50.156.138 with SMTP id we10mr2767120igb.10.1327068327014;
        Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:05:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.65] (99-121-78-10.lightspeed.lnngmi.sbcglobal.net. [99.121.78.10])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 5sm10284905ibe.8.2012.01.20.06.05.25
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:05:26 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4F1974A2.1030701@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:05:22 -0500
From: Edgar Friendly <thelema314@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111124 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: oliver <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>, caml-list@inria.fr
References: <CAFrFfuEk3-Y7Gd4aSp7-xXWyceaBZCVtWUKg9AD8DoZXgTVEoA@mail.gmail.com> <CAC1A9D40NusKirW7DEQbzuhtXvuVwqX7VBR6v6trJ1JjbPO2Bg@mail.gmail.com> <E51C5B015DBD1348A1D85763337FB6D9C264BA49@Remus.metastack.local> <4F196C25.7070402@gmail.com> <20120120135814.GB2927@siouxsie>
In-Reply-To: <20120120135814.GB2927@siouxsie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] is there a more concise way to write this?

On 01/20/2012 08:58 AM, oliver wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 08:29:09AM -0500, Edgar Friendly wrote:
> [...]
>> if a then if b then [a;b] else [a]
>> else if b then [b] else []
> [...]
>
> For me, the original pattern matching code looks much easier to read.
>
I agree - this was not meant to be a suggestion on how to make the 
original code easy to read, but instead to point out that it's as 
efficient as this ugly "optimized" code.  I included it in my benchmark 
as well for only this reason, to verify that the original code was as 
efficient as it.

E.