From: Damien Doligez <damien.doligez@inria.fr>
To: caml-list <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Parameter evaluation order
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:33:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <91631662-65C4-4FB7-96B1-B6C1CAF50B80@inria.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <000401c5a84a$a2e79760$1866b811@Operational>
On Aug 24, 2005, at 03:24, Hao-yang Wang wrote:
>> Suppose you want to evaluate a curried function call in left-to-right
>> order:
>> f e1 e2 e3 e4
>>
>> You must evaluate f first, then e1. Then you must apply f to e1,
>> giving
>> a new function g1. Then you must evalue e2, then apply f1 to e2,
>> giving
>> f2, etc.
>>
>>
>
> It seems to me that as long as evaluate f the last, we are ok.
>
Yes.
> We can specify the evaluation order of the _parameters_ left-to-right
> (i.e., e1 then e2, e3, e4, and finally f), without running into the
> efficiency problem.
>
No, that is a contradiction. f is an arbitrary expression of the
language,
for example (g e0), so the code above might well be in fact:
g e0 e1 e2 e3 e4
Now, if you evaluate f last, you are obviously not evaluating the
arguments
in left-to-right order, since you evaluate e0 after the others. In
order to
stay consistent, you have to evaluate them in right-to-left order.
In fact, when all your functions are curried there are only two possible
choices: evaluate the function first, or the argument first. There is
no such thing as a multi-argument function application. Evaluating f
last forces you to evaluate the arguments in right-to-left order in
expressions like the above.
-- Damien
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-08-24 11:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-08-19 22:21 "Márk S. Zoltán"
2005-08-20 9:12 ` [Caml-list] " Alain Frisch
2005-08-26 17:53 ` "Márk S. Zoltán"
2005-08-22 16:50 ` Damien Doligez
2005-08-23 7:12 ` skaller
2005-08-23 11:29 ` Damien Doligez
2005-08-23 13:34 ` Igor Pechtchanski
2005-08-23 19:52 ` Damien Doligez
2005-08-24 1:24 ` Hao-yang Wang
2005-08-24 11:33 ` Damien Doligez [this message]
2005-08-24 14:39 ` [Caml-list] " Christophe Raffalli
2005-08-24 15:47 ` Berkeley DB Joel Reymont
2005-08-24 16:08 ` [Caml-list] Re: Parameter evaluation order brogoff
2005-08-24 20:05 ` Christophe Raffalli
2005-08-24 20:25 ` brogoff
2005-08-24 20:53 ` Jon Harrop
[not found] ` <430CE193.9000805@univ-savoie.fr>
2005-08-26 9:53 ` Christophe Raffalli
2005-08-26 10:10 ` Jon Harrop
2005-08-26 12:09 ` Christophe Raffalli
2005-08-26 12:26 ` Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons
2005-08-26 16:48 ` Christophe Raffalli
2005-08-27 15:33 ` Christophe TROESTLER
2005-08-26 12:36 ` Ville-Pertti Keinonen
2005-08-26 14:17 ` Fernando Alegre
2005-08-26 17:00 ` Christophe Raffalli
2005-08-26 22:58 ` skaller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=91631662-65C4-4FB7-96B1-B6C1CAF50B80@inria.fr \
--to=damien.doligez@inria.fr \
--cc=caml-list@yquem.inria.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox