From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8FEDBCAC for ; Sun, 15 May 2005 19:24:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from copper.three-tuns.net (copper.three-tuns.net [193.201.200.235]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j4FHOmId023837 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 15 May 2005 19:24:49 +0200 Received: from mark by copper.three-tuns.net with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DXMrA-0002Vr-Cd; Sun, 15 May 2005 18:24:48 +0100 Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 18:24:48 +0100 From: Mark Shinwell To: Jon Harrop Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] A nastier example Message-ID: <20050515172448.GA1712@three-tuns.net> References: <200505142009.29177.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200505142009.29177.jon@ffconsultancy.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: Mark Shinwell X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 428785E0.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; shinwell:01 shinwell:01 caml-list:01 ocamlc:01 bug:01 semantics:01 %20:98 %20:98 wrote:01 bin:01 caml-bugs:02 top-level:02 cambridge:04 compiled:04 inria:05 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 08:09:28PM +0100, Jon Harrop wrote: > Does code ever work differently in the top-level than when compiled (with > ocamlc)? Yes. See for example "Reply 2" of: http://pauillac.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs/not%20a%20bug?id=3591;page=64;user=guest Mark -- Dr Mark Shinwell -- email: Mark.Shinwell@cl.cam.ac.uk Theory and Semantics Group, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory