> Lemme try it out (10^6 elements):
> 
> ocamlc:
> rev rev_map version:
>  2 WALL ( 1.19 usr +  0.02 sys =  1.21 CPU)
> vanilla map:
>  7 WALL ( 6.50 usr +  0.09 sys =  6.59 CPU)
> 
> ocamlopt:
> rev rev_map version:
>  1 WALL ( 0.81 usr +  0.03 sys =  0.84 CPU)
> vanilla map:
>  2 WALL ( 2.45 usr +  0.02 sys =  2.47 CPU)

OK, so why is List.map in the OCaml standard library implemented the
vanilla way rather than the rev rev_map way?  If it's such a big win,
it seems foolish to have a broken implementation for such a crucial
function.

(BTW, if you want efficient (and pure) mapping and filtering over long
streams, you should consider using lazy lists.  A good compiler (like
GHC) will do the deforestation optimisation, so the list is never even
allocated[1].)

[1] unless you make use of persistence, of course.

--KW 8-)

-------------------
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