>The standard? Pfff... let me laugh. The term "standard" in SML is just
>a marketing term. SML is not more *a* standard than OCaml.

I beg to differ.  There are a number of implementations
of Standard ML from different "vendors" (e.g., SML/NJ, PolyML,
MLKit, MoscowML, MLton, etc.)  In addition, there are books 
describing the standard language and library.  The former is 
relatively formal when compared to most language definitions.  

In contrast, Ocaml is implemented by one group and has no
"definition".  Rather, the implementation largely defines 
the language.

I do not say these things with any implied judgment that
one approach is better than the other.  But I do believe
that "standard" is more than a marketing term for SML.

-Greg
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr