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: | 2005-09-26 (05:56) |
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