Browse thread
Efficiency of let/and
[
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: | William Lovas <wlovas@s...> |
| Subject: | Re: Ant: [Caml-list] Efficiency of let/and |
On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 06:32:40AM +0200, Martin Chabr wrote:
> As it appears to me, there is no semantic difference
> between both alternatives. It can be shown with two
> dependent expressions y = 1 and z = y + 2:
This is not universally true:
> # let y = 1
> and z = y + 2 in
> z;;
> - : int = 3
Objective Caml version 3.08.1
# let y = 1
and z = y + 2 in
z;;
Unbound value y
So either you are using a version older than 3.08.1 or this is a fairly
recent change. In the latter case, people who wish to remain backward-
compatible might eschew this style for sequential bindings, regardless
of any potential performance problems.
William