From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id LAA14256; Tue, 25 May 2004 11:41:58 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA14412 for ; Tue, 25 May 2004 11:41:57 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.181]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4P9frSH010603 for ; Tue, 25 May 2004 11:41:55 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp114-11.lns1.syd3.internode.on.net [150.101.114.11]) by smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4P9fVZq045574; Tue, 25 May 2004 19:11:32 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] lstat on windows native From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: Olivier Andrieu Cc: caml-list In-Reply-To: <20040525.105531.13989532.andrieu@ijm.jussieu.fr> References: <1085470849.6065.457.camel@pelican.wigram> <20040525.105531.13989532.andrieu@ijm.jussieu.fr> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1085478090.6065.498.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 25 May 2004 19:41:30 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 40B314E1.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 sourceforge:01 2004:99 andrieu:01 runtime:01 foo:01 implemented:01 implemented:01 9660:01 glebe:01 semantics:01 nsw:01 olivier:02 snail:02 imply:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 18:55, Olivier Andrieu wrote: > No, using unimplemented features of the Unix module will never prevent > your program to compile nor link. > The module signature is the same on > all platforms. However, it will probably raise an exception at runtime > (like Invalid_argument "foo not implemented"). Ah, ok .. that isn't what the documentation seems to imply by saying 'not implemented'. If you are correct, it *is* implemented, just having quite different semantics. -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners