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 OAA16726; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 14:21:16 +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 OAA17317 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 14:21:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h5ACKuH01196; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 14:20:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from xleroy@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id OAA17308; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 14:20:55 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 14:20:55 +0200 From: Xavier Leroy To: sshah@alumni.calpoly.edu Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml Standards Document Message-ID: <20030610142055.A16412@pauillac.inria.fr> References: <20030606234446.89484.qmail@web41213.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20030606234446.89484.qmail@web41213.mail.yahoo.com>; from zakaluka@yahoo.com on Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 04:44:46PM -0700 X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 model:01 unspecified:01 hypothetical:01 majordomo:99 subscribing:99 standardized:01 ocaml:01 caml:01 constructs:02 imposes:02 subscribe:97 address:96 explicitly:03 subset:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > While trying to learn functional programming using OCaml, I > came across the following question: does OCaml have a > defined standard (formal or informal; such as ANSI/ISO C++ > or RnRS Scheme). Not really. Chapter 6 of the reference manual ("The Objective Caml language") was written with the intent of defining the OCaml language and not just its current implementation, following the model of the RnRS. This is apparent, for instance, in the fact that it explicitly says that the evaluation order for some constructs is unspecified in the language, while the implementation imposes a particular evaluation order. Still, chapter 6 is still a long way (in term of precision and ability to reimplement the language from scratch) from a good informal standard like RnRS. Moreover, many users seem to find it more useful for the documentation to describe the actual implementation in as much details as possible, rather than an hypothetical "standardized" subset... > P.S.: How do I subscribe to the mailing list. I have > submitted messages to caml-list-request@inria.fr and to > Majordomo@pauillac.inria.fr, with no success. It helps if the e-mail address you subscribe to the list is the same address you're subscribing from. - Xavier Leroy ------------------- 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