Hi,
Take a look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_Application_Markup_Language
and position of this link in google:
http://www.google.pl/search?source=ighl=plrlz==q=CamlbtnG=Szukaj+w+Googlemeta=
I'm sure that if you developed an XML-based language called VISUAL
BASIC (some short
Hello, list.
I've been recently trying to compile a module I made. I can load the
.cmo I generate out of it, but not the .cma I generate out of it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/svn/ocaml-yziquel$ ocaml
Objective Caml version 3.10.2
# #load ocaml-yziquel.cma;;
Reference to undefined global
-
*ALICS* - Applications of Logic in Computer Security
LPAR 2008 workshop, November 22, Doha, Qatar
-
EXTENDED SUBMISSION DEADLINE - 24th October
Since I am slightly responsible for getting you into this exercise, I
volunteer to test the code on Ubuntu 7.04, Intel and AMD64
architectures. Let me know when you want something done.
Best regards,
Andrej
___
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription
Andrew Varon wrote:
On Oct 17, 2008, at 5:59 AM, David Allsopp wrote:
Pleased to say that I've got my 3 current projects compiled and
running
under 3.11+beta1
Unfortunately for one of the projects, its reference run (a
computationally intensive, repeatable operation the speed of
David Allsopp wrote:
OK, so I've tried using the -nodynlink option with all calls to ocamlopt and
spotted *no* timing difference. A quick binary comparison of the EXE
produced reveals that ocamlopt -nodynlink is making ABSOLUTELY NO difference
in the resulting code.
-nodynlink only makes a
I'm not sure that parsing ocamlbuild file is the right thing to do. For
a simple OCaml project (which would probably mean most Camelia
projects), there are no OCamlBuild files at all.
Mmmhhh there's .itarget (i.e. a list of files you wish generated
after compilation), but that's about it.
I'm not sure that parsing ocamlbuild file is the right thing to do. For
a simple OCaml project (which would probably mean most Camelia
projects), there are no OCamlBuild files at all.
Mmmhhh there's .itarget (i.e. a list of files you wish generated
after compilation), but that's about
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 09:19:40AM -0400, Kuba Ober wrote:
I have questions to the kind folks at Jane Street,
and others who use OCaml for commercial/non-research
development: what do you guys use for your development
environment?
vim in an xterm for me :)
What are killer features you dream
What are killer features you dream of?
Clearly, the ability to click on a function to go to the place where it is
defined is the only reason why I switched from emacs to Eclipse ... And I
would be very happy to switch to a faster IDE because Eclipse is so slow on
big project.
Thomas
On Oct 20, 2008, at 9:37 AM, Mark Shinwell wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 09:19:40AM -0400, Kuba Ober wrote:
I have questions to the kind folks at Jane Street,
and others who use OCaml for commercial/non-research
development: what do you guys use for your development
environment?
vim in an
Kuba Ober a écrit :
I'm not sure that parsing ocamlbuild file is the right thing to do. For
a simple OCaml project (which would probably mean most Camelia
projects), there are no OCamlBuild files at all.
Mmmhhh there's .itarget (i.e. a list of files you wish generated
after compilation),
Kuba Ober wrote:
I have questions to the kind folks at Jane Street,
and others who use OCaml for commercial/non-research
development: what do you guys use for your development
environment? What would be the minimal set of functionality
that would make you happy for an IDE? What are killer
Thomas Gazagnaire wrote:
What are killer features you dream of?
Clearly, the ability to click on a function to go to the place where
it is defined is the only reason why I switched from emacs to Eclipse
... And I would be very happy to switch to a faster IDE because
Eclipse is so slow on
On Oct 20, 2008, at 11:56 AM, David Teller wrote:
Just for the sake of bibliography, this reminds me of efuns [1] and
Chamo [2].
[1] http://pauillac.inria.fr/cdrom/prog/unix/efuns/eng.htm
[2] http://home.gna.org/cameleon/
Cheers,
David
Does anyone know the status of either of these
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I have written smart autocompletion based on the toplevel in a mode I call
SOLID.
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~pengzang/tools.html
I've never gotten around to announcing it because it takes time to polish up
and write good doc... time that I
I thought of reading through the code and maybe contributing, but the fact
that it's all in C++ is holding me back a bit. Still, I'm going to take a
look once I have time.
Actually, porting the code to pure OCaml might prove the most interesting
task to me. I wonder what is the state of QT4
On Monday 20 October 2008, Romain Bardou wrote:
Kuba Ober a écrit :
I'm not sure that parsing ocamlbuild file is the right thing to do. For
a simple OCaml project (which would probably mean most Camelia
projects), there are no OCamlBuild files at all.
Mmmhhh there's .itarget (i.e. a
I use 16 (4x4) virtual Fvwm desktops with free mouse movement between
them and a small map of the desktops in the lower-right corner (+
xosview). The majority of the population finds this disturbing, I'm not
really sure why. I hate clicking or typing to switch from a window to
another so I
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 09:45:34AM -0600, Robert Morelli wrote:
What Emacs lisp does wrong is virtually a checklist of bad programming
language design. On the
other hand, these are all of the things languages like OCaml do right.
It'd be interesting to hear[1] what exact features of elisp are
On Monday 20 October 2008, you wrote:
What are killer features you dream of?
Clearly, the ability to click on a function to go to the place where it is
defined is the only reason why I switched from emacs to Eclipse
I think that Camelia can do that -- it already fetches type annotations from
It'd be interesting to hear[1] what exact features of elisp are
counterproductive for large-scale collaborative programming.
I've not looked very closely at elisp, but assumed the reason that
emacs remains unconfigurable for most users is because it's Lisp,
not because of the particular
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:15:52 -0400
Yitzhak Mandelbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 20, 2008, at 11:56 AM, David Teller wrote:
Just for the sake of bibliography, this reminds me of efuns [1] and
Chamo [2].
[1] http://pauillac.inria.fr/cdrom/prog/unix/efuns/eng.htm
[2]
Richard Jones wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 09:45:34AM -0600, Robert Morelli wrote:
What Emacs lisp does wrong is virtually a checklist of bad programming
language design. On the
other hand, these are all of the things languages like OCaml do right.
It'd be interesting to hear[1]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 20 October 2008 07:02:46 pm Robert Morelli wrote:
Because of its poor design, I lost the heart to try to program complex
tasks in Emacs lisp quite
a while ago, so I don't have everything fresh in my mind. Perhaps Peng
Zang who posted
in
Stéphane Glondu a écrit :
It seems that chain.cmo is linked before protection.cmo inside the .cma.
The order of modules inside of a .cma file is important. The behaviour
is the same as if they were #loaded in the same order in a toplevel. Try
writing explicitly all .ml files of $(SOURCE) in
26 matches
Mail list logo
