On Dec 10, 2011, at 00:24 , Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Whether you call it a fork or a distribution doesn't matter.
It does, IMHO. Forking a project allows you to integrate more intrusive
changes, and doesn't force you to stay compatible (in some way) with the
original work. That's, in my
On Dec 9, 2011, at 22:22 , Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 03:05:43PM +0100, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
Hm, I'm not sure. It's really easy to generate LLVM code for OCaml
in general, the problem is getting things to interact with legacy
OCaml code, with exception handling being
Stéphane Glondu wrote:
C sure is not a good target language, but assembly is not either.
The assembly backends of ocamlopt (and GHC... there is no support at all on
some Debian ports) look like a maintenance burden that their authors obviously
cannot cope with. I find the idea of making
I think that to achieve better
interoperability and hype, one of those would be a better fit than the
current native and bytecode compilers.
Next year is going to be exciting with so many people commiting themselves
to develop all these additions to the compiler ! :-)
--
Caml-list mailing
There already exist such a common denominator language. For
performance reasons, it is architecture-dependent (I mean there are
several dialects to better use hardware peculiarities; the virtual
machine it runs on is not exactly virtual). Unfortunately, most
languages have concentrated on
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 01:38:53PM +0100, ri...@happyleptic.org wrote:
I think that to achieve better
interoperability and hype, one of those would be a better fit than the
current native and bytecode compilers.
Next year is going to be exciting with so many people commiting themselves
Most projects are either academic research or industrial products. In
academia, reinventing a common language run-time won't get funding because
it is not novel enough. In industry, products that aren't economically
viable in the mid-term (years) or sooner won't get funding. So the common
On 12/08/2011 10:10 AM, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
Opening up the development of OCaml is a great suggestion, for
example. Personally I'd even suggest to disconnect OCaml and INRIA,
with an independent team of core maintainers (with appropriate spare
time and knowledge). INRIA would still
On 12/07/2011 12:18 PM, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
The French book Le langage Caml is very great, althought it is quite old,
and althought examples used in the book (write a pascal compiler, a grep
tool and so on) is maybe too theoristic for engineer target.
Maybe a translation would be
Le samedi 10 décembre 2011 à 19:10 +, Wojciech Meyer a écrit :
I'm asking, because certainly it would be a very wanted feature. I can
see two major limitations of the current Camlp4/p5 system:
- no way of recursively expand syntax, generate some code and then
re-generate again using
On 12/10/2011 03:32 PM, Andrei Formiga wrote:
The question is: what should be done? What must be done to enable
OASIS-DB?
Sylvain has worked with me to enable auto-installation of oasis-db
packages via odb[2]. There's not a large repo of packages[1], but most
of it is auto-installable (run
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 09:44:01PM +0100, Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons wrote:
What I see as the very first issue is the spread of the efforts between
similar yet incompatible ML dialects leading to 4 weak communities (SML,
OCaml, F#, Haskell) instead of a really strong one and all the related
On 12/10/2011 04:12 PM, ri...@happyleptic.org wrote:
What I'd really like is a way to mix any version I want of the packages I
install, especially experimental versions for the packages I want to test or
contribute to.
I stopped using GODI some time ago because I wanted master of ocaml and
Jérémie Dimino jere...@dimino.org writes:
Le samedi 10 décembre 2011 à 19:10 +, Wojciech Meyer a écrit :
I'm aware that these are huge changes to Camlp4, but it would make
meta programming more powerful and push Camlp4 to the next level.
Sure. But it seems that the next version of OCaml
Edgar, It's excellent to know that you have some knowledge of Oasis-DB.
I share the common assumption that this is one of the missing bricks
of the OCaml ecosystem, and I hope the community at large can help
with it. I asked Sylvain about it a few months ago, but he wasn't sure
at that time what
On 12/10/2011 04:44 PM, Gabriel Scherer wrote:
Could you (or Sylvain) make a more precise picture of how exactly the
community could help in the Oasis-DB effort?
My opinion is that oasis-db+odb is good enough for wider use. I don't
know what plans Sylvain has for the oasis-db server side, but
On 12/10/2011 04:49 PM, ri...@happyleptic.org wrote:
I will try to use it for some time.
But your description of it does not match my dreams.
Ideally, I would `odb install this-package --version=X.Y.Z`,
and `odb install another-one --branch=master`, and odb would
upgrade and/or rebuild what's
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 15:45, Xavier Leroy xavier.le...@inria.fr wrote:
2- As pointed out already in this discussion, it's not on the Caml compiler
that community efforts are most needed. For example, the most impactful
action that his community could take, in my opinion, is to adopt and
A summary to this lengthy mail:
(1) Why type-enriched Camlp4 is an unreasonable idea
(2) We should extract the typedtree; why it's hard
(3) A fictional narrative of the camlp4/camlp5 history
(4) Why you don't want to become Camlp4 maintainer
(5) How we could try not to use Camlp4 in the future
(6)
Hi...
There are some cool but quite dirty tricks based on computed gotos
between functions to avoid problems with function size; see Section
5.2 of:
Compiling logic programs to C using GNU C as a portable assembler
Fergus Henderson, Zoltan Somogyi and Thomas Conway.
Proceedings of the ILPS '95
Gabriel Scherer gabriel.sche...@gmail.com writes:
A summary to this lengthy mail:
(1) Why type-enriched Camlp4 is an unreasonable idea
(2) We should extract the typedtree; why it's hard
(3) A fictional narrative of the camlp4/camlp5 history
(4) Why you don't want to become Camlp4 maintainer
21 matches
Mail list logo
