[oconnor0]

> and not so good at floating point computations

What does this mean? I was under the impression the OCaml compiler did a decent number of floating point specific optimizations, like unboxed arrays and what not.

[noir_lord]

Surprised me as well janestreet are a well known user of ocaml and I can't imagine they don't use a lot of floats.

[pjmlp]

I guess it is the typical complain about using separate operators for ints and floats.

It never bothered me in Caml Light, let alone when Objective Caml was introduced.

[andrepd]

You can write floating point operators in several different ways. You can write with the normal floating point operators

    x *. y +. z

or, since `Float.(+) = (+.)`, `Float.() = (.)`, etc,

    let open Float in
    x * y + z

or simply

    Float.(x * y + z)

[xyproto]

That is pretty neat. Does it mean that one could do something similar for vectors and quaternions?

    let open Quaternion in
    x * y + x

[andrepd]

Yep. You could write

    module Quaternion = struct
      let (+) =
        ...
    
      let ( * ) =
        ...
    end

then

    let open Quaternion in

imports the contents of Quaternion into local scope, so you can write

    x * y + z

[vrotaru]

Yes.

[oconnor0]

Ah, maybe, perhaps I am in the minority that liked the different operators for ints and floats. :D

[rixed]

Symbols (variants with our without parameters) and integers are unboxed, while floats are not (but in a few specific cases such as arrays of floats, and iiuc that's an inelegant special case on its way out, as it prevents other optimisations).