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 q0KENh1Q010130
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:23:43 +0100
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgECAPB3GU/RVdU2kGdsb2JhbABDgw2Bd6h2CCIBAQEBCQkNBxQEIYFyAQEBBBICDxUIARscAQEDDAYFCwMKAgIFFgsCAgkDAgECARERAQUBHAYNAQcBAR6jIgqLIkiCb4R2P4hxAgULgSSJYYEWBIg8jF2FVYE3hwQ9hBw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,542,1320620400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="140747172"
Received: from mail-yw0-f54.google.com ([209.85.213.54])
  by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 20 Jan 2012 15:23:43 +0100
Received: by yhfs35 with SMTP id s35so326844yhf.27
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:23:42 -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:cc:subject
         :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=jsF4WH1zQKej3xIvokJdnGxeiPB5N50rywjHiVh6Ju4=;
        b=UYpBIDqnl0zQoq35EwDOSMRD9MRPQPB9u+fNzsT1kTZwlQgzVu24dMA+ZpuDLGTsAs
         cKKSzRkbQQaaHo8h9zVu79gOORx6rbPCw4IunstezrDVs7MzB9lb+dFwy3woePeWcLLD
         DILxqeqmlPr5vqmY9wWvnhg4I54IpG1J2ZmPo=
Received: by 10.236.191.134 with SMTP id g6mr44898044yhn.95.1327069422407;
        Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:23:42 -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 j11sm8505924anl.8.2012.01.20.06.23.40
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:23:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4F1978EB.3070409@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:23:39 -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: David Allsopp <dra-news@metastack.com>
CC: "caml-list@inria.fr" <caml-list@inria.fr>
References: <CAFrFfuEk3-Y7Gd4aSp7-xXWyceaBZCVtWUKg9AD8DoZXgTVEoA@mail.gmail.com> <CAC1A9D40NusKirW7DEQbzuhtXvuVwqX7VBR6v6trJ1JjbPO2Bg@mail.gmail.com> <E51C5B015DBD1348A1D85763337FB6D9C264BA49@Remus.metastack.local> <4F196C25.7070402@gmail.com> <E51C5B015DBD1348A1D85763337FB6D9C264D3AF@Remus.metastack.local>
In-Reply-To: <E51C5B015DBD1348A1D85763337FB6D9C264D3AF@Remus.metastack.local>
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 09:12 AM, David Allsopp wrote:
> Maybe for this case with two variables, yes - but it can't do that indefinitely: as the number of variables increases, the code size increases exponentially.

true, the right way to generalize this is to use vuillion's `maybe` 
function that prepends conditionally.  My main point is that the 
original match statement is not bad in efficiency, and does, in fact, 
run 35% faster for the 2-variable case.

E.