On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 14:44:11 -0400, Jeremy Bem <jere...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> wrote: > > > * Jeremy Bem: > > > > > To support my research, I've developed an implementation ("Llama Light") > > of > > > the core Caml language. Modules, objects, labels etc are not supported > > > (except for file-level modules). The system strongly resembles OCaml, > > > however the completely rewritten typechecker is not only much smaller in > > > terms of lines-of-code; it has a genuinely simpler design owing > > especially > > > to the lack of first-class modules. > > > > How do you deal with strings (are they mutable?) and polymorphic > > equality (is it type-safe?)? > > > > Yes and no, respectively. In other words, nothing new here. > > Strings can be made immutable (in both Llama and OCaml) by disabling > String.set in the standard library (the s.[i] <- c construct is just sugar > for a call to that function).
And removing the other functions of String module which mutates strings (actually I've made an experiment in which I removed string mutability). > Is there a better approach to polymorphic equality floating around? Type classes! -- Nicolas Pouillard http://nicolaspouillard.fr _______________________________________________ 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