Browse thread
How to do this properly with OCaml?
-
Thomas Fischbacher
- Christophe Dehlinger
- Berke Durak
- Michel Quercia
- Eric Cooper
-
Michael Alexander Hamburg
-
Xavier Leroy
- Berke Durak
- Michael Alexander Hamburg
- Thomas Fischbacher
- Alex Baretta
-
skaller
-
Stephane Glondu
-
skaller
-
Stephane Glondu
-
skaller
- skaller
- Brian Hurt
-
skaller
-
Stephane Glondu
-
skaller
- Ken Rose
-
Stephane Glondu
- Thomas Fischbacher
-
Xavier Leroy
[
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: | David Thomas <david_hd@y...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] How to do this properly with OCaml? |
Ah. I personally have a vendetta against floating point in general, so I'll stay away from that one then, as I don't want yet another discussion to degrade into a flame war. If anyone's curious about my thoughts on the matter in detail, they can feel free to email me directly, though. --- skaller <skaller@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 08:35 -0700, David Thomas > wrote: > > I'm still curious what numerical algorithm is so > > desperately in need of variable length arrays... > > I think I was not clear. Normally Ocaml boxes > contain either an int or a heap pointer > to a data object. So a floating point value > is represented by a pointer. > > Doing numerical programming with an array > of pointers to floats instead of an > array of floats has a performance impact, > so Ocaml now provides arrays of unboxed floats. > > I wasn't referring to the need for variable length > arrays > in numerical code, but the need to circumvent boxing > in numerical code for arrays of numerical values: > this is considered significant enough to warrant > specialised compiler optimisations and data > structures. > > The point being, arrays of boxes are considered > inefficient, > and in some cases it is already considered > significant > enough for considerable work to be done to fix it. > > So arguing an extra indirection required for the > array of option solution to variable length arrays > is insignificant is contrary to the evidence that > INRIA already accepts it can be inefficient. > > Again, this is not to say variable length arrays > without this extra overhead should be provided, > just that the argument that the overhead is not > significant is suspect. > > -- > John Skaller <skaller at users dot sourceforge dot > net> > > > _______________________________________________ > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: > http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list > Archives: http://caml.inria.fr > Beginner's list: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com