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 WAA16282; Wed, 5 May 2004 22:42:02 +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 WAA16543 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 22:42:01 +0200 (MET DST) From: brogoff@speakeasy.net Received: from mail1.speakeasy.net (mail1.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.201]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i45KfxEV019661 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 22:42:00 +0200 Received: (qmail 810 invoked from network); 5 May 2004 20:41:56 -0000 Received: from grace.speakeasy.net ([216.254.0.22]) (envelope-sender ) by mail1.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 5 May 2004 20:41:56 -0000 Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 13:41:56 -0700 (PDT) To: Julien Signoles cc: Jon Harrop , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Functors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 40995197.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; brogoff:01 caml-list:01 functors:01 signoles:01 functorized:01 ocamldefun:01 3.07:01 mlton:01 mlton:01 doable:01 python:01 compiler:01 compiler:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk 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