On Sunday 14 January 2007 18:21, Edgar Friendly wrote:
> Yes to the first sentence, I think no on the second.  Map and Hashtbl
> are very good, but I think I really want an array.  For an ('a, 'b) Map,
> this is for situations where the set of 'a is fixed at design time, I
> don't see the overhead of Maps and Hashtbls being appropriate.  Atomic
> variants already have unique ids from 0 to n-1, so they seem quite
> appropriate for this kind of task.

You should at least measure the overhead of using a hash table before trying 
to address the overhead...

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
Objective CAML for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists