> >  It has to do with the type system more then anything
 > > else. I use a stack to handle data that the
 > > interpreted process is manipulating...
 > >
 > >  Ok this is all fine and dandy, until a few months
 > > from now when I want to add a new type say File of
 > > Unix.file_descr. The word implementations to support
 > > the new type wouldn't actually be a problem. However,
 > > extending the type seems to be impossible.

This is a hard problem, to my knowledge not solved in the literature.
There are instances of interpreters that provide type-extensibility,
but none that also support separate compilation.  We have solved this
problem through some heavy use of ML modules.  I am still working on
the paper that describes this solution.  But you can get some hints
from an unpublished manuscript `Toward A Calculus of Signatures' at
  http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~nr/pubs/sigcalc-abstract.html 
The part you want is the extended example in Section 2.


Norman
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners