Re: [Caml-list] Functors

[brogoff@speakeasy.net]

On Wed, 5 May 2004, Julien Signoles wrote:
> > I didn't mean including the defunctorizor in the compiler, just the
> > functionality which it provides.
>
> It is what I mean too ;-). Sorry, my English is really perfectible.

I'm not sure I understand the difference, since there is only one
defunctorizer for OCaml, wouldn't including it in the compiler be the
easiest way to get that functionality?

In any case, the absence of a defunctorization step means that we often
have a choice between performance and a functorized programming style, which
stinks. Does ocamldefun deal with the recursive modules of 3.07?

MLton began as an SML defunctorizer if I'm not mistaken, but has evolved
into a whole program optimizing compiler. Since I usually have access to all
of the OCaml sources that I want to compile, an OCamlton is an appealing
prospect. Stephen Weeks (of the MLton team) told me he thought an OCaml front
end was doable (he mentioned that he's working or contemplating a Python front
end) but there were some interesting problems in translating some of the
newer OCaml features (recursive modules, polymorphic methods) but that he had
some ideas.

-- Brian

-------------------
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