Re: [Caml-list] Llama Light: a simple implementation of Caml

[bluestorm <bluestorm.dylc@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1440 bytes --]

When using the toplevel, declaration phrases fail (looks like a linking
problem), but expressions work as intented :

> $ llama

        Llama Light version 0.0828

# 1 + 1;;

- : int = 2

# let x = 1 + 1;;

Error: Reference to undefined global `Toploop'


I made my tests using "llamac -i foo.ml".


I found it startling that the most important difference to my eyes are
buried, on the web page, under lines of relatively boring documentation :

In Llama Light (and in contrast to other Caml implementations):


> - let does not generalize.

- Phrases are generalized immediately. In particular, "let foo = ref []"
> does not typecheck.

- The value restriction is not relaxed. (This is similar to Caml Light.)


> These choices simplify the implementation while having relatively little
> impact on the user.


You cite the "Let Should Not Be Generalised" paper. There is however a
difference in your application of the maxim : in the paper, local let that
have polymorphic type annotations are generalised, while in your system it
is not possible to force generalisation.

I had a look at the typer, and it's indeed rather simple; it seems it would
be quite simple to implement generalized let (when encountering annotations
or with a different syntaxic construct : "letg .. = .. in ..."), but the
added complexity is equivalent to adding let generalization by default.

Is the presence of let-generalization a real issue in your work ?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4782 bytes --]