Hi,
On 26-11-2010, Anastasia Gornostaeva erm...@ermine.pp.ru wrote:
Hello.
How can I substitute in setup.ml (not in _oasis file) values for
CCOpt and CCLib fields? I think it is better to substitute them from
setup.data, if I could to put proper values to setup.data.
For example:
CCOpt:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:49 AM, m...@proof-technologies.com wrote:
Surely it's preferable to use a syntactically distinct mechanism for this
subtly different concept.
Agreed.
Perhaps something like '*' to mean 0 or more. Or is it already too late
because '_' has already been
Hello,
To the extent that this rule is the same for all languages and that most
languages on the shootout are also garbage collected, I think OCaml's
problem with this benchmark do point at a weakness of the current
GC code.
This is untrue ... the bintree example, is just bad in OCaml because
I think OCaml's problem with this benchmark do point at a weakness
of the current GC code.
What makes you think that ?
I don't really understand the question: it was just stating the obvious.
OCaml's GC (including its default settings) is generally very good, but
like all GCs it has its
Le Mon, 22 Nov 2010 20:33:34 +0200, Török Edwin edwinto...@gmail.com a écrit :
Not sure what the max should be for the minor heap increase, but based
on this benchmark increasing size of minor heap never slows down the
program. Even when size of minor heap exceeds what fits in the cache.
I
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Yoann Padioleau pada...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
On Nov 24, 2010, at 1:38 AM, Martin DeMello wrote:
Both ruby and vala make an effort to provide nice syntactic support
for gtk code, so that it looks like a natural part of the language.
Could you give some example
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Richard Jones r...@annexia.org wrote:
Given that vala and ruby both use the C API at some level buried
underneath, and cover it up with some syntax, how about starting a
project to do something similar on top of lablgtk2? I for one would
welcome this since
On 11/27/10 04:23, Julia Lawall wrote:
In my case, I originally thought that the constructor should take an
argument, then changed my mind. I would have hoped that OCaml would have
found the inconsistency. That's what static typing is for. Thus, I
find the change quite disappointing.
I
