From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <damien.doligez@inria.fr>
Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9E34BDCE
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:33:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [128.93.8.130] (macadam.inria.fr [128.93.8.130])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j7OBXMq8019412
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:33:22 +0200
In-Reply-To: <000401c5a84a$a2e79760$1866b811@Operational>
References: <43065B83.6050503@dravanet.hu> <254E6767-A097-455B-872B-483725D26744@inria.fr> <000401c5a84a$a2e79760$1866b811@Operational>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v733)
X-Priority: 3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <91631662-65C4-4FB7-96B1-B6C1CAF50B80@inria.fr>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Damien Doligez <damien.doligez@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Parameter evaluation order
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:33:20 +0200
To: caml-list <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.733)
X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 430C5B02.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)!
X-Spam: no; 0.00; damien:01 damien:01 caml-list:01 hao-yang:01 curried:01 evalue:01 curried:01 2005,:98 wrote:01 arbitrary:01 doligez:01 doligez:01 expression:01 functions:01 argument:01 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled 
	version=3.0.3


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