From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95F99BC69 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 02:11:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.140]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l75NMnt1014451 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 01:22:51 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAHj0tUZ5LGJp/2dsb2JhbAAN X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.19,223,1183300200"; d="scan'208";a="167479430" Received: from ppp121-44-98-105.lns10.syd6.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.201]) ([121.44.98.105]) by ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 06 Aug 2007 08:52:47 +0930 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Str replacement From: skaller To: Xavier Leroy Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <46B5F55C.8050201@inria.fr> References: <1186223315.14440.64.camel@rosella.wigram> <46B5F55C.8050201@inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 09:22:46 +1000 Message-Id: <1186356166.6523.59.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 46B65BC9.003 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; 0200,:01 incorrectly:01 rewrote:01 respectable:98 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 implemented:02 api:02 module:03 module:03 perhaps:05 trivially:05 xavier:06 xavier:06 On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 18:05 +0200, Xavier Leroy wrote: > > When is the Str module going to be extended to provide > > re-entrant operations?? > > When someone designs a new interface to Str and gets it approved by a > few respectable members of this community. A proof-of-concept > implementation wouldn't hurt either, although I'm OK with writing the > final implementation. It's the API for which I don't have ideas. > > > I understand (perhaps incorrectly) that Xavier rewrote the > > code for this module, and assume the underlying functionality > > is re-entrant? > > Correct. Ah, this is all good news! A proof of concept could probably be trivially implemented, just using the old interface. -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net