From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id IAA02129 for caml-redistribution; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 08:44:12 +0200 (MET DST) 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 BAA02932 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 01:00:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fritz.traverse.net (oliverhome.cablezone.com [207.140.231.102]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA02032 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 1998 01:00:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from oliver by fritz.traverse.net with local (Exim 1.90 #1) for caml-list@inria.fr id 0zHBIa-00007X-00; Thu, 10 Sep 1998 14:18:28 -0400 Message-ID: <19980910141827.A437@fritz.traverse.net> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 14:18:27 -0400 From: Christopher Oliver To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: RE: Caml toplevel thru Web (HTTP or CGI)? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i Sender: weis Adam P. Jenkins writes: > My two cents. Modifying the ocaml toplevel itself seems like too > much unnecessary work to me to get an effect like this. > ... > Even if you do have to write it yourself, it will be more generally > useful than a web-enabled OCaml toplevel. Think instead of a programmatically controlled toplevel. I've had thoughts of a ML environment which is something like the LispM and Smalltalk environments. I think a toplevel which has hooks for connecting command input and output to arbitrary routines rather than simply a chunk of CURSES code would be quite tasty. An expect program or telnet has to differentiate between input and output on the basis of string context, and that's easy to confuse. I use XEmacs/ILisp with CMUCL a fair bit, and sometimes despite being a great shell, it gets lost. Thoughts? -- Christopher Oliver Traverse Internet Systems Coordinator 223 Grandview Pkwy, Suite 108 oliver@traverse.net Traverse City, Michigan, 49684 "What good is a can of worms if you never open it?" -Bob Arning