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 TAA19597; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 19:03:34 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id TAA19874 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 19:03:33 +0100 (MET) 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 VAA22717 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 21:09:49 +0100 (MET) Received: from ns.bagley.org (ns.bagley.org [216.30.46.2]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g0GK9m510975 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 21:09:48 +0100 (MET) Received: by ns.bagley.org (TRS/80 Mail Daemon, from userid 500) id A537DFBA5C; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:09:48 -0600 (CST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15429.56844.510694.554970@ns.bagley.org> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:09:48 -0600 To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] error messages to stdout? From: Doug Bagley Organization: Eternal Flower Power Inc. X-Face: "|NaWfYJ-]P="T#?R.9}QgGuFXUd@3vi[.E2q-;"NV3+k_y@zreL2w^ts0XPXtt9^9{uQ@.cu2GgUgK9@HXC\a}Rtah}0'eT~>or7[~Hd?;!\Bpo#"3w>0a0ft-MvvZ In-Reply-To: <87n0ze9ivj.dlv@wanadoo.fr> References: <15429.3000.625598.380078@ns.bagley.org> <87n0ze9ivj.dlv@wanadoo.fr> Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Remi VANICAT wrote: > you should compile your program to (at least) bytecode code. It will > be faster, and those kind of error will only exist at compile time, > not at execution time... Well, I certainly could do that, but I was hoping to use Ocaml to replace my bash/awk/sed/perl scripts. For me, the convenience of having one single source file, and no compilation step, is one of the attractions of "scripts". As far as I can tell, the extra load time due to compilation of the script is negligible, and I assume the run-time is equivalent to a pre-compiled byte-code executable? I have many scripts that do filtering, so having a clean output stream is important to me. It seems to me that if the ability to use a custom toplevel as a script interpreter exists, then it would be very nice if it printed all diagnostics to stderr. Anyway, I have a workaround, I wrote a "trampoline" program that can be used in place of the toplevel interpreter and does the compilation transparently for lazy persons such as myself. It essentially turns any compiled language into a scripting language. If anyone is interested in it ... I could clean it up for public consumption. cheers, doug ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr