On 04/26/2012 12:08 PM, Xavier ALLAMIGEON wrote:
What do you mean exactly? I imagine that test.o needs some functions of
the libhello_world.a. But I don't see why libasmrun would need some
other functions of libhello_world...
Well, this is the case. libasmrun contains the runtime system for
On 04/12/2012 04:16 PM, Philippe Veber wrote:
Isn't this a good use case for polymorphic variants too ?
I don't see how to use polymorphic variants here. The message bus
itself need to provide functions like:
val dispatch: message - unit
val register_listener: (message - unit) - unit
On 04/12/2012 07:07 PM, Leo P White wrote:
Just like exceptions, they are represented as constructors whose first
field points to an address that is allocated by the extension definition
to represent that extension. They have a special tag value so that
structural equality knows to compare the
On 04/02/2012 10:03 AM, Romain Bardou wrote:
I always heard that if you compile your program under the Cygwin
environment, then the application needs to be run under the Cygwin
environment as well; whereas if you use MinGW, you produce stand-alone
executables. Is that still the case?
It
On 3/30/2012 12:46 AM, François Bobot wrote:
But can't we consider that, for a semantic, syntax and typing perspective:
type t =
| A of string
| B of ({msg: string; mutable foo:int} as t2)
| C
is exactly the same thing than:
type t =
| A of string
| B of t2
| C
and t2 = {msg: string; mutable
Dear caml-list,
I'd like to ask for the community help in evaluating the benefits of a
new strategy to control boxing/unboxing of floats in ocamlopt.
I've implemented this new strategy in the more_unboxing branch of the
SVN. You can find some description (and micro-benchmarks) there:
On 03/22/2012 12:47 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I'm a bit surprised to find that native dynlink doesn't work in the
same way as bytecode dynlink in respect to reloading the same module.
(See attached test program)
In bytecode dynlink, reloading (ie. Dynlink.loadfile) the same module
causes
On 03/21/2012 10:01 AM, Thomas Braibant wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Alan Schmitt
alan.schm...@polytechnique.org wrote:
On 21 mars 2012, at 09:21, Jacques Garrigue wrote:
(using 4.00, but you can also write with (val …))
Nice teaser ;-)
Indeed, this is the second time I see
question concerning the scope of the workshop or the
submission process, please contact the program chair
(al...@frisch.fr).
IMPORTANT DATES
---
* 2012-06-04: Submission
* 2012-07-13: Notification
* 2012-09-13: Workshop
PROGRAM COMMITTEE
-
Alain Frisch (chair
On 03/13/2012 07:27 PM, David Allsopp wrote:
+1. Surely in projects where repeatability is important, the change in
behaviour to randomly seeded tables would be quickly noticed
The problem is that the randomization might go unnoticed if the
high-level outputs of the program does not depend
On 03/06/2012 05:38 PM, Matej Košík wrote:
Hello,
In the file:
typing/path.mli
contains the following definition:
type t =
Pident of Ident.t
| Pdot of t * string * int
| Papply of t * t
What is the semantics of third parameter?
In the
On 12/19/2011 5:09 AM, Romain Beauxis wrote:
On this point, I believe that it would be very nice to have, indeed, a
clearer integration process and more communication from the core
development team. For instance, if I would be to propose a complete
rewrite of OCaml's build system, I'd like to
On 12/14/2011 06:36 PM, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
I know, and this makes me quite optimistic that it is not that hard to
develop standalone executables for the frequently used Unix utilities.
It's amazing how a discussion about simplifying the life for Windows
users ends up with let's emulate
On 12/16/2011 02:14 PM, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
Simple answer: There is a bootstrap problem: The existing Ocaml users
are almost Unix-only. They do not care about Windows. In order to
establish Windows-typical problem solving you need definitely more
Windows users, but they will only come if you
On 12/14/2011 02:37 PM, Adrien wrote:
Actually, I think that you should have used the /etc/alternatives
symlinks: /usr/bin/gcc points to /etc/alternatives/FOO and you can make this
FOO symlink point to the /usr/bin/BAR binary that you want.
The problem is that flexlink.exe (and ocamlopt.exe)
On 12/13/2011 10:53 AM, Adrien wrote:
On 13/12/2011, Alain Frischal...@frisch.fr wrote:
As Xavier said, it would be great to find someone who'd like to join the
core dev team in order to improve support for Windows. Anyone interested?
In my experience, OCaml is working mostly fine on
Dear caml-list,
The mingw port of OCaml was not in a good shape, because of changes in
Cygwin:
- We used to rely on the normal Cygwin gcc compiler, using the
-mno-cygwin flag. This is no longer available for recent versions
of gcc shipped in Cygwin. There is still a gcc-3.exe, but
On 12/11/2011 12:34 AM, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
the Coq
team which has user-defined notations using Camlp4 and, huh, I really
don't want to know the details
My understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that Coq uses
camlp{4,5} only as an extensible parser library in order to parse its
On 12/09/2011 12:50 PM, Jonathan Protzenko wrote:
Just for the record, c...@inria.fr also happens to be list where the
members of the Caml Consortium discuss their issues. There's potentially
private/sensitive information in there, and it's not always clear what
relates to the consortium
On 12/08/2011 10:10 AM, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
There were already a few useful comments on the topic, but no statement from
the current INRIA officials. Opening up the development of OCaml is a great
suggestion, for example. Personally I'd even suggest to disconnect OCaml and
INRIA, with an
Dear caml-list,
I've just noticed that a recent paper by Yaron Minksy Why the next
language you learn should be functional is discussed on Slashdot, in a
story called OCaml For the Masses. That's great! And it's probably a
good time to make some buzz about OCaml there:
On 09/20/2011 03:36 AM, Yaron Minsky wrote:
For some reason, 1st-class modules have more restrictive with syntax,
which turns out to be a practical problem.
The main constraint is that with constraints do not seem to be able to
refer to sub-modules. Consider the following code snippet:
On 8/29/2011 5:35 AM, Jacques Garrigue wrote:
If you want just to structure your program, modules are better in most cases.
There are still situations where classes are stronger than modules for
structuring:
* when you have a default for some operation, but want to be able to change it
* when
On 08/22/2011 09:19 AM, Dmitry Bely wrote:
In the code below s reference is unboxed in sum_float loop, but not
in sum_in32. Why?
let sum_int32 v =
let s = ref 0l in
for i=0 to (Array.length v)-1 do
s := Int32.add !s (Array.unsafe_get v i)
done;
Int32.add !s Int32.zero
let
On 08/18/2011 10:58 AM, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
I believe the comparison hardening was made desirable by the expected
use of first-class modules to encode existential datatypes: with
existential datatypes you may try to use the polymorphic comparison
operators on two values of the same
25 matches
Mail list logo
