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

[Jeremy Bem <jeremy1@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 938 bytes --]

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).

Is there a better approach to polymorphic equality floating around?

-Jeremy

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1831 bytes --]