Better syntactic arity for fat pointer writes #760
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
I'm willing to believe that. Thank you for the contribution, @ncik-roberts! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Change
<-@to have syntactic arity 2, not 1.<-@used to have syntactic arity 1, given that it is written as nestedfuns rather than a singlefunwith multiple parameters. In an upcoming version of OCaml 5, this difference will matter a little for performance, as the syntactic arity will start being used as the runtime arity.<-@is usually applied to 2 arguments (I claim), so it's a little better for performance for it to have runtime arity 2 and therefore for those applications to be full applications.This PR is a no-op for OCaml 5.1.1 and earlier.