From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdsfh1@gmail.com>
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95DA77EE4B
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:20:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  gdsfh1@gmail.com) identity=pra; client-ip=209.85.216.177;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="gdsfh1@gmail.com";
  x-sender="gdsfh1@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of
  gdsfh1@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.177 as permitted
  sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.216.177;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="gdsfh1@gmail.com";
  x-sender="gdsfh1@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible;
  x-record-type="v=spf1"
Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@mail-qc0-f177.google.com) identity=helo;
  client-ip=209.85.216.177;
  receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="gdsfh1@gmail.com";
  x-sender="postmaster@mail-qc0-f177.google.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ai0CAJGvRVLRVdixm2dsb2JhbABbhBGDKb0igRQIFg4BAQEBAQYLCwkUKIImAQUjHQEbHgMMBgULAwwCJgICIgERAQUBHAaIBgEDD5tWjAFRgwqEDAoZJw1kiQABBQyBHY4vgmqBNgOJM45MkA4YKYRQOQ
X-IPAS-Result: Ai0CAJGvRVLRVdixm2dsb2JhbABbhBGDKb0igRQIFg4BAQEBAQYLCwkUKIImAQUjHQEbHgMMBgULAwwCJgICIgERAQUBHAaIBgEDD5tWjAFRgwqEDAoZJw1kiQABBQyBHY4vgmqBNgOJM45MkA4YKYRQOQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,994,1371074400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="28346191"
Received: from mail-qc0-f177.google.com ([209.85.216.177])
  by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 27 Sep 2013 18:20:44 +0200
Received: by mail-qc0-f177.google.com with SMTP id x12so1842785qcv.8
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=P/iZd+wnWu2YRACtKRaEuHv7ltYxBYXoUcLp/pzDjrU=;
        b=kFNEZueFXkqV6/DKpYoa0qByu2MqrFf/uRO7ySiKT6h40y8SitrNZmrONSKOzvaRgR
         RSR62AGrc1TdfuVnz0BuXI0G6pAkNjsRjFDaRpNRNbFmEFiLAvcVijRXdDUNUFInOaEB
         +0RJyH4Om3zvITWrJu7pljXHQejk0dtD0p0C7wfFCq6tUTqvHE/rs7TxXnb4AjpVOxyJ
         qH3nE4gs2upT+2DhFruJ9kOlrhvv3U6p99CJv7cj/5m8UZDY0Pq5MC9tMNNCu+Ph42Y3
         A3d0V/aUe7aau3ObN0EupO7sKSJIVQ3yPYUeRXopJ4ol82OKDStjsJ5CGo4AjZY2Bd0b
         XMoQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.73.200 with SMTP id r8mr15164651qaj.72.1380298844084;
 Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.42.70 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAN6ygO=LeHdg0rWexQfkBhFdNo76=+s=5rrb8iG-ypUvPGp08Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN6ygO=cnhc039DEOVf7uZqpTCedVO0SMnG+rvFw4hm4qPc7cg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPi0vKVcq4+qn_k0KnDUsMs1L495oWmeHoqPwJPMtEPYx=M-EA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN6ygOmuCX6HLfSns0tXQCF3LWMANqhpnSN0vGWcNg0one2QzQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN6ygO=LeHdg0rWexQfkBhFdNo76=+s=5rrb8iG-ypUvPGp08Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 19:20:43 +0300
Message-ID: <CAPi0vKUHB9aK8rZwbfenR+JqsNwheRWdjr-pvRfQeMdZxT+c-g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dmitry Grebeniuk <gdsfh1@gmail.com>
To: Yotam Barnoy <caml-list@inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Fwd: Proposal: re-design of ocaml headers

Hello.

>> (this is a thread about runtime values
>> representation, I suppose.)
> This isn't really relevant to this topic, since this discussion is just
> about ocaml headers, rather than the ocaml C FFI. The FFI would remain
> largely the same.

  There is a lot of bindings have to be rewritten due to these
changes.  You can not automate it with C preprocessor.  What would you
suggest here?