From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39D7DBBA7 for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2006 19:14:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from uproxy.gmail.com (uproxy.gmail.com [66.249.92.195]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k15IEYth015284 for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2006 19:14:34 +0100 Received: by uproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id m2so536378uge for ; Sun, 05 Feb 2006 10:14:34 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=UbGf0ynrQZvjpyt8HelYE8KUArVEBRDfODPukkF6+FBfLlJuYM+qO8oec25YmZE3/JNoLI2QfWqLpyRjQMdH8E+jMyssOj7geI/QsCn3hWHMQb/zN/U1OxJNZ4YrZhz4V6Q3Vx5MJYWSiZK0+udJMM7sZ1IyeJsu4JcZqRhNRLw= Received: by 10.48.232.6 with SMTP id e6mr972854nfh; Sun, 05 Feb 2006 10:14:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.48.4.15 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Feb 2006 10:14:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <9d3ec8300602051014r6f9a971fje9d4f1544d2ddff6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 19:14:34 +0100 From: Till Varoquaux To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Curried form different from "normal" In-Reply-To: <200602051800.21213.jon@ffconsultancy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <9d3ec8300602050840ha03fcd2wf8a43bd7a09732f2@mail.gmail.com> <200602051800.21213.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 43E6408A.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 curried:01 imperative:01 purely:02 functional:02 guess:02 equivalence:03 sense:08 gmail:09 consequences:11 should:13 david:14 pointed:15 figured:16 code:17 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_BY_IP, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 Yes, I apologize for bugging all of you. This makes sense and I could (should) have figured it out by myself. As david pointed out the equivalence is only true for purely functional code. I guess this is one of the consequences of flirting to much with imperative features... Till Varoquaux