On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 08:59:31AM -0500, Edgar Friendly wrote: > On 01/20/2012 04:38 AM, oliver wrote: > >More concise does not always mean better readable or more performant. > >You apply the same kind of selection for both values. > > I can't measure readability, but I did throw together a quick > benchmark to test the different methods. Please take no offense at > this - I'm sure that the responses were headed much more towards > readability than performance,
Thats not offending, the result is fine for me. :-) I preferred the pattern-match version, because I like things to be displayed in tables. ;-) My version (option type and folding on lists) you did not implemented, but maybe it would have been my work to do that. But I liked the pattern macthing way. That it also is the fastest way, is a fine result. :-) I hope you used more than one call of the function and used average / stddev on your values to get reliable results... I don't know your Bench-module. Where is it from? Ciao, Oliver -- Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
