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 KAA19576; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:21:10 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 KAA19745 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:21:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from alex.barettalocal.com (h213-255-109-130.albacom.net [213.255.109.130] (may be forged)) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i9F8L84u020060 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:21:08 +0200 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alex.barettalocal.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1F552BAA94 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:22:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <416F88D6.8090601@baretta.com> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:22:46 +0200 From: Alex Baretta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 X-Accept-Language: it, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Caml List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] About Obj (was Recursive lists) References: <41669437.3010201@yahoo.it> <4166A395.70301@yahoo.fr> <4166DC42.3090602@baretta.com> <16746.15832.409677.764564@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <416A8CDA.7060407@univ-savoie.fr> <00F89380-1BA2-11D9-B4CE-000A958FF2FE@wetware.com> <416D14C3.4030902@baretta.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 416F8874.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; baretta:01 baretta:01 caml-list:01 brogoff:01 abstraction:01 modeled:01 ffi:01 riders:01 ocaml:01 caml:01 caml:01 alex:01 alex:01 linking:02 necessarily:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk brogoff wrote: > On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Alex Baretta wrote: >>You might have noticed that Caml breeders use Obj fairly liberally when >>it is needed to achieve a higher of abstraction which cannot be modeled >>in the core language. > > > Good point, but I hope every Caml fan accepts these uses as being neccesary > compromises of the moment that can one day be eliminated by a stronger core > language. > > -- Brian Not necessarily. You certainly don't mean to say that the C FFI is a necessary compromise to be removed one day? We already have a very strong core language, which is fully type safe. Extensions to this core language, library-wise, can be achieved by linking to C code or, depending on the application, to Obj-aware Ocaml libraries. Apart from such extensions, which most of the core libraries build upon, no code should directly call C code or Obj code directly. This is the contract between the Caml and its riders. Alex ------------------- 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