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 9A63CBCAB for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 13:40:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (yquem.inria.fr [128.93.8.37]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j4GBeWf9006224 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 13:40:34 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v622) In-Reply-To: <200505160115.34416.jon@ffconsultancy.com> References: <200505142009.29177.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <20050515172448.GA1712@three-tuns.net> <200505160115.34416.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <2d26751672edba48073994fc03b83573@inria.fr> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Damien Doligez Subject: Re: [Caml-list] A nastier example Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 13:40:32 +0200 To: caml-list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.622) X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 428886B0.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; damien:01 damien:01 caml-list:01 usefulness:01 marshaling:01 2005,:98 wrote:01 doligez:01 doligez:01 closures:01 functions:01 closure:02 top-level:02 top-level:02 compiled:04 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 May 16, 2005, at 02:15, Jon Harrop wrote: > Very interesting. In summary, is it fair to say that Marshall has > problems > with functions when used in the top-level but not with ocamlc- and > ocamlopt- > compiled code? Yes, although it is a very small problem: it would pretty hard for the average programmer to guarantee that the same function is compiled at the same address in the top-level that unmarshals the closure. So the usefulness of marshaling closures from the top-level would be rather small. -- Damien