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 mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AAAEBBAF for ; Sun, 8 Aug 2010 19:59:43 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: An8EAEKNXkxXaqLJgWdsb2JhbACgRBUBARYiIsAZhToE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,338,1278280800"; d="scan'208";a="56861510" Received: from ka.mail.enyo.de ([87.106.162.201]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 08 Aug 2010 19:59:42 +0200 Received: from [172.17.135.4] (helo=deneb.enyo.de) by ka.mail.enyo.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) id 1OiA9s-0003wQ-Eg; Sun, 08 Aug 2010 19:59:40 +0200 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OiA9s-0007dJ-7R; Sun, 08 Aug 2010 19:59:40 +0200 From: Florian Weimer To: Jeremy Bem Cc: caml-list List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] interest in a much simpler, but modern, Caml? References: Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 19:59:40 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Jeremy Bem's message of "Fri, 6 Aug 2010 00:04:34 -0400") Message-ID: <877hk1m1df.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 typechecker:01 mutable:01 type-safe:01 owing:98 equality:01 polymorphic:01 caml-list:01 strings:01 modules:02 modules:02 caml:02 caml:02 rewritten:02 supported:02 * Jeremy Bem: > To support my research, I've developed an implementation ("Llama Light") of > the core Caml language. Modules, objects, labels etc are not supported > (except for file-level modules). The system strongly resembles OCaml, > however the completely rewritten typechecker is not only much smaller in > terms of lines-of-code; it has a genuinely simpler design owing especially > to the lack of first-class modules. How do you deal with strings (are they mutable?) and polymorphic equality (is it type-safe?)?