Kuba Ober wrote: >> The requirements are very simple: 1. easy access to toplevel (with >> line-editing) 2. editor which can send stuff to toplevel, points to >> errors in source code, and is not Emacs. > > I've been reading through this thread and it all seems like a > 300-liner in Qt/C++ (yes, it's that powerful) (excluding syntax > definition for Qt's editor widget, if one doesn't exist somewhere for > grabs).
I should have added a 0-th requirement: 0. easy to install on Windows. This means that anything which requires more than clicking on setup.exe and following some instructions is out of the question (which is why, for example, drocaml is out of question). > Is there a non-Cygwin (mingw?) version of Ocaml for Windows that's > "good enough" for you? If so, I will tackle it over the weekend. My > numerical methods prof was looking for something like that too. Just > give me a pointer to a non-Cygwin version of Ocaml that works for > you; I refuse to deal with anything that has "Cygwin" in it :) It appear that you really are Santa Claus, as you are offering presents. By the way: > On Friday 26 September 2008, Andrej Bauer wrote: >> > How can there be no easy to use interface?! This is pathetic. >> > >> > Python has IDLE. Scheme has drscheme. Java has drjava. What does Haskell >> > have? > > If IDLE is an IDE, then I'm Santa Claus ;) So where exactly did I claim it was an IDE? I just said "easy to use interface". Yup, definitely Santa Claus. Best regards, Andrej _______________________________________________ Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
