skaller--

I tried to send this back-channel, but it bounced.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Mail Delivery System <Mailer-Daemon@wetware.com>
> Date: 02 January 2004 12:40:39 PST
> To: jhw@wetware.com
> Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
>
> This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
>
> A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
> recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) 
> failed:
>
>   skaller@ozemail.com.au
>     SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT 
> TO:<skaller@ozemail.com.au>:
>     host mx.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.76]: 550 Invalid recipient:
>     <skaller@ozemail.com.au>
>
> ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------
>
> Return-path: <jhw@wetware.com>
> Received: from [208.177.152.18] (helo=[10.0.1.5])
> 	by wetware.com with esmtp (Exim 4.20)
> 	id 1AcW5x-00046L-G0
> 	for skaller@ozemail.com.au; Fri, 02 Jan 2004 12:40:34 -0800
> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609)
> In-Reply-To: <1072936720.4626.18.camel@pelican>
> References: <1072936720.4626.18.camel@pelican>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> Message-Id: <E68ACC6A-3D63-11D8-A3F4-000393B8133A@wetware.com>
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> From: james woodyatt <jhw@wetware.com>
> Subject: Re: [Caml-list] flow optimisation q
> Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 12:40:28 -0800
> To: skaller@ozemail.com.au
> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609)
>
> On 02 Jan 2004, at 18:54, skaller wrote:
>>
>> Nothing to do with ocaml, but some people here
>> might know.. Suppose there is a set of
>> primitive procedures pr1 pr2 and a procedure constructor:
>>
>> proc = proc list
>>
>> which defines a new procedure to be a list of calls
>> to other procedures, with mutual recursion allowed.
>>
>> A special procedure is the empty
>> procedure whose call list is empty.
>>
>> Problem: remove all empty procedures
>> (and of course calls to them).
>>
>> My current algorithm is functional:
>> make a new set of procedures which
>> (a) excludes empty procedures
>> (b) has calls to empty procedures elided
>>
>> To make this solve the problem requires
>> repeated application until there are no
>> empty procedures left.
>>
>> I get the feeling there should be a way to do it
>> a bit more efficiently :-)
>
> I have a hunch that your current approach might be equivalent to
> executing an NFA, which you could improve by using a DFA instead.  Just
> a hunch, though-- I haven't given it more than cursory thought.
>
>
> -- 
> j h woodyatt <jhw@wetware.com>
> markets are only free to the people who own them.
>

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners