From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 0FC30BB81 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2006 00:27:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from ptb-relay02.plus.net (ptb-relay02.plus.net [212.159.14.213]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k28NR1Kb013759 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2006 00:27:01 +0100 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=chetara) by ptb-relay02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1FH83Y-0007zL-Rc for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:27:00 +0000 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] recursive or loop Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 23:28:52 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <200603061715.k26HF32w015203@nez-perce.inria.fr> <9d3ec8300603081410p163053e6j8435270a504daf7d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200603082328.53385.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 440F6845.003 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; recursive:01 marshalling:01 toplevel:01 marshalling:01 ocaml:01 2006:98 frog:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 marshal:01 marshal:01 closures:01 closures:01 closure:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Wednesday 08 March 2006 22:13, Thomas Fischbacher wrote: > On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Till Varoquaux wrote: > > I beleive specifying Marshal.Closures when marshalling should do the > > trick... > > Have you ever tried this with production code? Yes. > Say, from the toplevel? I don't use the top-level for my production code. > Marshalling Closures is severely limited (aside from the fact that the 16 > MB string length often hits badly when one tries to marshal closures). Presumably only when you try to marshal your closure to a string on a 32-bit machine? -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. Objective CAML for Scientists http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists