Ville-Pertti Keinonen wrote:

>
> On Mar 21, 2004, at 7:36 PM, Oleg Trott wrote:
>
>> If I were writing a dynamically-typed language implementation in 
>> O'Caml, I'd _compile_ it _to_ O'Caml (as opposed to interpreting the 
>> language) In fact, except for EVAL and CALL/CC, it's probably very 
>> trivial to write a Scheme-to-OCaml compiler, and get the performance 
>> on par with decent native-code Scheme compilers.
>
>
> How would you handle interactive sessions?


It would have the same limitations as OCaml, obviously: interactive in 
bytecode only (this has long been one of my biggest gripes about OCaml, 
actually). FWIW, I don't think writing a Scheme-to-OCaml compiler is a 
very useful waste of one's time, just that it should be about as easy as 
writing an interpreter for Scheme in OCaml.

Cheers,
Oleg

-------------------
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