Browse thread
[Caml-list] OCaml Speed for Block Convolutions
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Pierre Weis <Pierre.Weis@i...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] let mutable (was OCaml Speed for Block Convolutions) |
> Le Vendredi 8 Juin 2001 19:30, Pierre Weis a écrit : > > > The introduction of a ``let mutable'', more concisely noted with the > > var keyword, is not new: it has been discussed in the Caml groups 3 or > > 4 years ago. We chose to abandon it for sake of semantics simplicity > > of the language. > > For beginners (f.e. students) things look a bit complicated : > > (* summing up all elements of an integer array *) > let adda a = > let res = ref 0 in > let i = ref 0 in > while !i < Array.length(a) do res := !res+a.(!i); i := !i+1 done; > !res > ;; > > A lot of boring exclam, but that's the price to pay for having > mutable values, and that's logical. Okay ... > > (* same, but with a for loop *) > let add_1 a = > let res = ref 0 in > for i=0 to Array.length(a)-1 do res := !res + a.(i) done; > !res > ;; > > No exclam and no ref for i ? And its value is changing though ? Where is > gone the logic ? The for loop is a short hand for a call to a local recursive function: no reference and no problem here, unless you consider that you cannot change the arguments of a recursive call to a function. (For readers not familiar with the subject, let's recall that for i = e1 to e2 do e3 done is equivalent to let rec _loop i _lim = if i <= _lim then begin e3; _loop (i + 1) _lim end in _loop e1 e2 (where _loop and _lim stand for new fresh identifiers, not free in e1, e2, or e3) ) > > This construction would have introduced the notion of > > Lvalue in Caml, thus introducing some additional semantics complexity, > > and a new notion to explain to beginners. > > Lvalues already exist in Ocaml (and have to be explained to beginners), for > example : "a.(i) <- a.(i)+1". I'm afraid this is wrong. The syntactic construction e1.(e2) <- e3 is a short hand for a function call: Array.set e1 e2 e3. Once more there is no Lvalue here, just a regular function call (hence you can write arbitrary complex expressions in place of e1, provided it returns an array value). I'm a bit surprised that you feel it necessary to explain the notion of Lvalue to beginners when there is no such notion in the language ! Best regards. Pierre Weis INRIA, Projet Cristal, Pierre.Weis@inria.fr, http://pauillac.inria.fr/~weis/ ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr