Re: [Caml-list] interest in a much simpler, but modern, Caml?

[Nicolas Pouillard <nicolas.pouillard@gmail.com>]

On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 14:44:11 -0400, Jeremy Bem <jeremy1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> 
> > * Jeremy Bem:
> >
> > > To support my research, I've developed an implementation ("Llama Light")
> > of
> > > the core Caml language. Modules, objects, labels etc are not supported
> > > (except for file-level modules). The system strongly resembles OCaml,
> > > however the completely rewritten typechecker is not only much smaller in
> > > terms of lines-of-code; it has a genuinely simpler design owing
> > especially
> > > to the lack of first-class modules.
> >
> > How do you deal with strings (are they mutable?) and polymorphic
> > equality (is it type-safe?)?
> >
> 
> Yes and no, respectively.  In other words, nothing new here.
> 
> Strings can be made immutable (in both Llama and OCaml) by disabling
> String.set in the standard library (the s.[i] <- c construct is just sugar
> for a call to that function).

And removing the other functions of String module which mutates strings
(actually I've made an experiment in which I removed string mutability).

> Is there a better approach to polymorphic equality floating around?

Type classes!

-- 
Nicolas Pouillard
http://nicolaspouillard.fr