Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] possible typechecker bug
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2003-09-20 (18:53)
From: skaller <skaller@o...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Commercial application written in O'Caml: ExcelEverywhere
On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 21:48, Ville-Pertti Keinonen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 10:01:15AM +0200, Mattias Waldau wrote:
> > Disadvantage
> > - 8-bits strings.
> >   UNICODE is needed and the standard for .NET, Java, Ruby...

> I think Unicode support should be a matter of library functionality,
> not native string representation.  There is at least one Unicode
> library available for OCaml (

Except it's a third party product with a restrictive LGPL
licence which makes it useless to me :(

I can use an LGPL library only if it is part of the standard
distribution, otherwise I have to be able to make
it part of my own source tree (I will not require end 
users to download X packages from all over the place
that don't come with any kind of support assurance) 
-- and I happen to provide a FFAU (free for any use) licence,
which excludes including said sources in my source tree.
Sane for PCRE: it might as well not exist.

So I agree with Mattias: it's needed in the standard
distribution since they're no FFAU alternative.

I also think, quite separately, that the Ocaml compiler
itself ought to be upgraded to modern i18n concepts.
Some pain there (since Latin-1 is supported, but that
code set is unsuitable).

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: