Browse thread
[Caml-list] Dynamically evaluating OCaml code
-
John Goerzen
- Vitaly Lugovsky
- Samuel Mimram
-
Basile Starynkevitch
-
Issac Trotts
- Dustin Sallings
-
Brian Hurt
- Oleg Trott
- Ville-Pertti Keinonen
-
John Goerzen
-
Markus Mottl
-
Richard Jones
-
Markus Mottl
- Jon Harrop
-
John Goerzen
- Jean-Marc EBER
-
Trevor Andrade
-
Gerd Stolpmann
- skaller
-
John Goerzen
-
Gerd Stolpmann
-
Christophe TROESTLER
-
Gerd Stolpmann
-
Christophe TROESTLER
- Brandon J. Van Every
- John Goerzen
- Jacques GARRIGUE
-
Christophe TROESTLER
-
Gerd Stolpmann
-
Christophe TROESTLER
- Matt Gushee
-
Gerd Stolpmann
- Benjamin Geer
-
Gerd Stolpmann
- skaller
-
Markus Mottl
- John Goerzen
- Jon Harrop
-
Richard Jones
- Fernando Alegre
- Jean-Marc EBER
- Kenneth Knowles
- Brian Hurt
- skaller
-
Markus Mottl
- Issac Trotts
- Basile Starynkevitch
-
Issac Trotts
- clement capel
- Jon Harrop
- Walid Taha
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Kenneth Knowles <kknowles@b...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Re: GODI vs. Ocamake |
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 04:58:47PM -0700, Brandon J. Van Every wrote: > Productive would be, you go do your thing, we'll go do ours. Enough > talk. We know where our lines of disagreement are. Actually I don't know at all. All I know at this point is that we agree that current tools are inadequate (many times over). If we "go our separate ways" it'd be stopping the discussion before it starts, and each party certainly has a right to do that, it's just a bummer. Kenn ------------------- 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