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 PAA22138; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:41:13 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA22936 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:41:12 +0200 (MET DST) X-SPAM-Warning: Sending machine is listed in blackholes.five-ten-sg.com Received: from alex.barettalocal.com (host132-68.pool80116.interbusiness.it [80.116.68.132]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i9HDfBFV032346 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:41:11 +0200 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alex.barettalocal.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F5B2BAA94 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:42:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <417276DE.6020106@baretta.com> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:42:54 +0200 From: Alex Baretta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 X-Accept-Language: it, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] About Obj (was Recursive lists) References: <41669437.3010201@yahoo.it> <4166A395.70301@yahoo.fr> <4166DC42.3090602@baretta.com> <16746.15832.409677.764564@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <416A8CDA.7060407@univ-savoie.fr> <00F89380-1BA2-11D9-B4CE-000A958FF2FE@wetware.com> <416D14C3.4030902@baretta.com> <416F88D6.8090601@baretta.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 41727677.000 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 brogoff:01 breeder:01 marshalling:01 reflection:01 marshalled:01 marshalling:01 compiles:01 compiler:01 unsafe:01 caml:01 alex:01 alex:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk brogoff wrote: > On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Alex Baretta wrote: > > >>We already have a very strong core language, which is fully type safe. > > > So, the core language should be frozen in its current state? Most definitely not! I'm trying to point out that part of the evolution of Ocaml-as-a-tool depends on the evolution of its libraries, which by all means are entitled to make use of Obj and C-FFI, especially if the author, a typically professional Caml breeder, makes the effort of making the correctness proofs where the type-checker accepts code by a leap of faith. > Is marshalling part of the core language? If so, then the core is not fully > type safe. The Marshal module is not really *core*. It's a hack worth having until the compiler will support type reflection to the extent of recognizing whether a marshalled module is or is not compatibile with the value being defined. Again, my point is that it's better to have an unsafe feature than not have the feature at all. I am one of those who complain with Xavier about marshalling, and I'm waiting for the revised implementation. But, meanwhile, with some care on my part, my software already compiles and runs. 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