Taken from Int64.ml:

let compare (x: t) (y: t) = Pervasives.compare x y

compare seems to be there for functor applications (e.g. Set.Make
needs it). I would use standard comparison; it should be exactly the
same except it will be more legible and might be a tad faster.

Till


On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Elnatan Reisner <elnatan@cs.umd.edu> wrote:
> Do the polymorphic ordering functions -- (<), (>), etc. -- correspond to the
> numerical ordering for Int64s and Int32s? I assume so, but I didn't see this
> specified anywhere.
>
> If the answer is 'yes', is there a reason I should prefer
> Int64.compare n1 n2 < 0
> to
> n1 < n2
> ? If there's no specific reason the first is better (and I don't see why it
> would be), I definitely prefer the second.
> -Elnatan
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>