]> On Wednesday 24 July 2002 06:31 pm, sajuma@utu.fi wrote: > I think you misunderstood the specification of the language. > (It was not very clear). The meaning of "a and b" should not > be "a is reachable and b is reachable" (additive and), but > "a and b are true at the same time" (multiplicative and). > Of course I could be mistaken too, but the multiplicative case > is more interesting. I did not misunderstand. I use multiplicative AND. All three programs give equivalent output when they all finish for all cases I looked at. However, your and Alex's programs, for examle, fail to finish processing this file containing 9000 rules with preconditions of lengths 1 to 10, 10 goals and 10 dataset points. (My patience ran out after 72 and 45 minutes of waiting for your and Alex's programs, respectively): http://www.columbia.edu/~ot14/rules_test_long.input.gz (152 kB), while mine takes only 4 seconds. Something to think about [1] > Here is a question: in C you can hack in all the object > oriented features, so why are you using C++? Many claim that > OOP in C is better than in C++, so what would you say to these > people? I'd ask them if they were on any special medication. Cheers, Oleg [1] As I said, I certainly do not blame O'Caml for this. Just poor choice of algorithm. ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners