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 SAA30799; Mon, 24 May 2004 18:48:07 +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 SAA30645 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 18:48:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from alex.baretta.com ([213.255.109.130]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4OGm5SH023176 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 18:48:05 +0200 Received: from baretta.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alex.baretta.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i4OGmlva017528 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 18:48:48 +0200 Message-ID: <40B2276F.40902@baretta.com> Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 18:48:47 +0200 From: Alex Baretta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: it, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ocaml Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Large projects in OCaml References: <200405211228.34673.jdh30@cam.ac.uk> <20040524.120703.46614549.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> <1085376050.6065.230.camel@pelican.wigram> <20040524.211426.68536843.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> <1085406873.6065.272.camel@pelican.wigram> <20040524162002.A19967@pauillac.inria.fr> In-Reply-To: <20040524162002.A19967@pauillac.inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 40B22745.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; baretta:01 baretta:01 caml-list:01 model:01 model:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 alex:01 alex:01 wrote:03 seems:05 shared:05 shared:05 static:06 indeed:06 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Xavier Leroy wrote: > A good component model for OCaml (and other languages): that would be > interesting. Shared libraries for the sake of shared libraries: that > isn't interesting in the least. > > - Xavier Leroy This is a very interesting remark. Indeed, static type safety seems rather incompatbile with a component model, yet, I'm sure someone is doing research on the subject. Can anyone point me to the relevant material? Alex ------------------- 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