Hi Nicolas,
> However I can guess in your question that you don't really want to change the
syntax of the binary operator "&", but rather to change it's meaning. In
camlp4 there is a much more sane and easier way to do this using filters.
By the way there is an example in the camlp4 sources that d
On 1/28/2009 11:35 PM, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
On 28-01-2009, Dmitry Bely wrote:
There are numerous environments/libraries that support process-based
Ocaml multiprocessing: jocaml, OCamlP3l, OcamlMPI (and probably
others). Do I get it right that all of them are Unix-only?
jocaml and ocamlp3l
On Jan 28, 2009, at 1:22 PM, Dmitry Bely wrote:
There are numerous environments/libraries that support process-based
Ocaml multiprocessing: jocaml, OCamlP3l, OcamlMPI (and probably
others). Do I get it right that all of them are Unix-only?
I have used mpich2 in windows: http://www.mcs.anl.go
On Jan 28, 2009, at 5:35 PM, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
On 28-01-2009, Dmitry Bely wrote:
There are numerous environments/libraries that support process-based
Ocaml multiprocessing: jocaml, OCamlP3l, OcamlMPI (and probably
others). Do I get it right that all of them are Unix-only?
jocaml and o
On 28-01-2009, Dmitry Bely wrote:
> There are numerous environments/libraries that support process-based
> Ocaml multiprocessing: jocaml, OCamlP3l, OcamlMPI (and probably
> others). Do I get it right that all of them are Unix-only?
>
jocaml and ocamlp3l seems indeed unix only. I think however tha
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 01:32 +0100, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:
> The encoding of modules using existential types in non modular, this
> basically means that you have to heavily transform the source.
>
> What one need to encode modules is "open" existential types, this well
> and clearly explained in
Excerpts from Julien SIGNOLES's message of Wed Jan 28 15:24:14 +0100 2009:
> Le mercredi 28 janvier 2009 à 14:07 +, Matthieu Wipliez a écrit :
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Is it a bug or a well-known feature that the above program does not emit
> > > a warning (because "f x" should have type unit
Excerpts from Paul Steckler's message of Wed Jan 28 10:39:16 +0100 2009:
> I'm writing a camlp4 grammar extension for OCaml that tries to match
> ampersands and rewrite expressions containing them. That wouldn't
> be a good idea if my code contained ordinary ampersands used for conjunctions.
> But
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Oh... I overlooked this one. You have to manage to get a set of .a files
> so that each object (.o) is there only once. In this case, I would drop
> libblas.a, since it is a dependency of liblapack (AFAIU).
Another thing you could do is to
There's the question of what the compiler _does_, what the compiler
_could_ do and what the compiler _should_ do.
The latter is mainly a matter of taste :)
I don't think "this 'a could be unit" is a good reason for skipping
the warning. On the contrary, "this 'a will probably sometimes b
Erick Matsen a écrit :
> Hm, unfortunately not the first one.
>
>>> /usr/lib/libblas.a(xerbla.o): In function `xerbla_':
>>> (.text+0x0): multiple definition of `xerbla_'
>>> /usr/lib/liblapack.a(xerbla.o):(.text+0x0): first defined here
>
> It doesn't link...
Oh... I overlooked this one. You ha
Hm, unfortunately not the first one.
>> /usr/lib/libblas.a(xerbla.o): In function `xerbla_':
>> (.text+0x0): multiple definition of `xerbla_'
>> /usr/lib/liblapack.a(xerbla.o):(.text+0x0): first defined here
It doesn't link...
Thanks,
Erick
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Stéphane Glondu
Erick Matsen a écrit :
> [...]
> /usr/lib/libblas.a(xerbla.o): In function `xerbla_':
> (.text+0x0): multiple definition of `xerbla_'
> /usr/lib/liblapack.a(xerbla.o):(.text+0x0): first defined here
> /usr/lib/ocaml/3.10.2/libasmrun.a(unix.o): In function `caml_dlopen':
> (.text+0x223): warning: Us
Dmitri Boulytchev wrote:
Applying g to 1 you will definitely have f x of type int and you have to
take care of the returned integer. Unfortunatly caml emits no warning in
this case (even if I understand why) :(.
Sure :) But as far as I understand this warning means "this
non-unit value w
There are numerous environments/libraries that support process-based
Ocaml multiprocessing: jocaml, OCamlP3l, OcamlMPI (and probably
others). Do I get it right that all of them are Unix-only?
- Dmitry Bely
___
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription manage
Hello Mauricio---
Is this what you mean?
ocamlopt \
-I /home/matsen/ocaml/bio/ -I /home/matsen/ocaml/common/ -I
/usr/lib/ocaml/3.10.2/pcre/ -I /usr/lib/ocaml/3.10.2/glpk/ -I
/usr/lib/ocaml/3.10.2/gsl/ -I /usr/lib/ocaml/3.10.2/lacaml/ -I
/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.3/ \
-ccopt -static
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 09:17:56AM -0800, Erick Matsen wrote:
> Here is my compile line
>
> ocamlopt \
>
> # source directories:
> -I /home/matsen/ocaml/bio/ -I /home/matsen/ocaml/common/ -I
> /usr/lib/ocaml/3.10.2/pcre/ -I /usr/lib/ocaml/3.10.2/glpk/ -I
> /usr/lib/ocaml/3.10.2/gsl/ -I /usr/
Hello Stephane (and the rest of the ocaml community)---
Thank you for your input here.
I do have libgfortran.a, but I might note that it's in
/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.3/ rather than /usr/lib. This is in contrast to
liblapack.a, etc, which just live in /usr/lib. This makes me wonder if this
Julien SIGNOLES wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is it a bug or a well-known feature that the above program does not emit
> a warning (because "f x" should have type unit in the body of "g") ?
>
> =
> let f x = x
> let g x = f x; 1
> (* let _ = g 2 *)
>
The compiler could have a command-line switch
Applying g to 1 you will definitely have f x of type int and you have to
take care of the returned integer. Unfortunatly caml emits no warning in
this case (even if I understand why) :(.
Sure :) But as far as I understand this warning means "this non-unit
value will definitely be omitted,
Hello Dmitri,
> no warning should be issued in this case since you have polymorphic
> function:
> applying g to () you will definitely have f x of type unit :)
Applying g to 1 you will definitely have f x of type int and you have to
take care of the returned integer. Unfortunatly caml emits
Le mercredi 28 janvier 2009 à 14:07 +, Matthieu Wipliez a écrit :
> > Hello,
> >
> > Is it a bug or a well-known feature that the above program does not emit
> > a warning (because "f x" should have type unit in the body of "g") ?
> >
> > =
> > let f x = x
> > let g x = f x; 1
> > (* let
Hello Julien,
no warning should be issued in this case since you have polymorphic
function:
applying g to () you will definitely have f x of type unit :)
Try another one:
let f x = x+1
let g x = f x; 1
Now you'll get the warning since the compiler can ensure that type
of f
> Hello,
>
> Is it a bug or a well-known feature that the above program does not emit
> a warning (because "f x" should have type unit in the body of "g") ?
>
> =
> let f x = x
> let g x = f x; 1
> (* let _ = g 2 *)
>
I'm not familiar with the internals of the compiler, but what I suppo
Hello,
Is it a bug or a well-known feature that the above program does not emit
a warning (because "f x" should have type unit in the body of "g") ?
=
let f x = x
let g x = f x; 1
(* let _ = g 2 *)
Best regards,
Julien Signoles
___
Caml-list
I'm writing a camlp4 grammar extension for OCaml that tries to match
ampersands and rewrite expressions containing them. That wouldn't
be a good idea if my code contained ordinary ampersands used for conjunctions.
But the code doesn't.
I'm struggling how to match the ampersands in my expression r
26 matches
Mail list logo
