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 RAA28356; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 17:21:48 +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 RAA28288 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 17:21:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f7DFLjX05026; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 17:21:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from xleroy@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id RAA28320; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 17:21:45 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 17:21:45 +0200 From: Xavier Leroy To: Kai Kaminski Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Integer arithmetic: mod Message-ID: <20010813172145.C26750@pauillac.inria.fr> References: <20010804124945.A354@alpha2.tabu.stw-bonn.de> <20010806111000.N7188@pauillac.inria.fr> <20010811002942.E4854@alpha2.tabu.stw-bonn.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20010811002942.E4854@alpha2.tabu.stw-bonn.de>; from kok@wtal.de on Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 12:29:42AM +0200 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > > So does Ada, I think. It's probably a good idea to have two sets of > > operators, and document that one of them (those that truncate downwards) > > is a bit less efficient. > I agree. Is there a chance that this will really happen in a future > release of OCaml? There is a chance, yes. It takes a bit of implementation work, and I consider this a low-priority feature, but yes it will probably be implemented once the higher-priority stuff is dealt with. > Is there a roadmap for OCaml-development? I'm glad you asked this, because it's time to reveal to the world that the development of OCaml is actually entirely handled by a collection of super-advanced genetic algorithms that simply mutate the sources until cool features emerge. We just sit and watch. The mutations can be directed by some sample code fragments written in any other language; the genetic algorithms then try to extract new language features that match the sample code. For instance, the object system in OCaml started to emerge when we fed it some Java and Smalltalk sources. Later, Jacques Garrigue threw in some Ada and Visual Basic code, and bingo! we got the labels of OCaml 3.00. The next step will probably be some Cobol fragments. I fully expect to get some interesting concepts out of this, such as BCD arithmetic, or even cool new syntax such as "divide a by b giving c in ..." (But see http://www.technologyreview.com/web/knorr/knorr080301.asp for similar ideas being actually experimented for producing patent applications.) More seriously: yes, there is a roadmap, at least for important changes (in the language or in the basic architecture of the implementation); no, we don't normally discuss it publicly. Small changes such as adding new library functions are generally dealt on a "by need" basis. - Xavier Leroy ------------------- 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