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 CAA19321 for caml-redistribution; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 02:07:52 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA26027 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:01:28 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from tobago.inria.fr (tobago.inria.fr [128.93.8.21])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA18043
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:01:26 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from doligez@localhost) by tobago.inria.fr (8.6.10/8.6.6) id TAA19321 for caml-list@inria.fr; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:01:27 +0200
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:01:27 +0200
From: Damien Doligez <Damien.Doligez@inria.fr>
Message-Id: <199906291701.TAA19321@tobago.inria.fr>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re:  Sys.argv with interpreter and compiler
Sender: weis

>From: Markus Mottl <mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at>

>I just wondered, whether it is intentional behaviour that the array
>of command line arguments ("Sys.argv") is treated exactly the same way
>under the interpreter and within executables.

Do you mean native-compiled executables versus byte-code, or compiled
programs versus the toplevel system ?

If the former, it's a bug.  If the latter, the toplevel was not really
designed for this use, and you can use Sys.interactive to tell which
case you are in.

-- Damien