From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id UAA05038 for caml-redistribution; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 20:00:12 +0100 (MET)
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA01982 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 19:34:03 +0100 (MET)
Received: from babba.advancenet.net (babba.advancenet.net [205.198.248.21])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA26616
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 19:33:53 +0100 (MET)
Received: from localhost (jhague@localhost)
	by babba.advancenet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA12570
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:33:12 -0600
X-Authentication-Warning: babba.advancenet.net: jhague owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:33:11 -0600 (EST)
From: James Hague <jhague@dadgum.com>
X-Sender: jhague@babba.advancenet.net
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Numeric programming efficiency question
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.990322122948.12166A-100000@babba.advancenet.net>
x-no-archive: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: weis

First of all, let me say that I've been having a great time learning
Objective CAML!

I implemented some simple functions that operate on three dimensional
vectors.  After reading the "Numeric Programming in CAML" document, it
seems that, unfortunately, the code resulting from using a more classic
syntax is less efficient than using structures.  That is, this:

let vadd (x0,y0,z0) (x1,y1,z1) = (x0 +. x1, y0 +. y1, z0 +. z1);;

generates poorer code than:

type vector = {x: float; y: float; z: float};;
let vadd a b = {x = a.x +. b.x; y = a.y +. b.y; z = a.z +. b.z};;

When using this function, one implementation has a more concise calling
syntax:

vadd (1.0,2.0,3.0) (10.0,20.0,30.0);;
vadd {x=1.0;y=2.0;z=3.0} {x=10.0;y.0;z=30.0};;

A utility routine makes the second option a little nicer:

let vec (a,b,c) = {x=a; y=b; z=c};;

This lets one write:

vadd vec(1.0,2.0,3.0) vec(10.0,20.0,30.0);;

I'm curious if the "shape changing" vec routine is optimized away in such
an expression.  I would expect it to be, but that's just the wishful
programmer in me.

James Hague