Browse thread
Why + vs +. but "fake" parametric polymorphism for <
[
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: | Carlos Pita <cpitaper@y...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Why + vs +. but "fake" parametric polymorphism for < |
> Of course there is an overhead. But the compiler is clever enough to > remove this overhead when the types of arguments are statically known. > In particular this is true for floats. Oh, I see, so if I understand you it would be enough if I use an integer literal somewhere or explicitly declare some variable as int so the compiler can infer that the particular use of the comparison operator is being passed integer operands and consequently inline an specific, optimized-for-int, version of <. Am I wrong? Cheers, Carlos __________________________________________________ Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí. Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas, está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta). ¡Probalo ya! http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas