On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, John Goerzen wrote:

> >  OCaml is a compiler, not interpreter. But, you'll find that this
> > feature is obsoleted by the partial application - it's a much
> > more powerfull device then lispish eval, and it can be even a
> > replacement for a macros.
>
> I don't think that will help me here; I'm looking at being
> able to let
> people insert OCaml expressions directly into otherwise
> plain-text config files.

 You really need OCaml with all its power as a DSL for a
configuration, or, may be, you'd like to implement a small DSL,
may be even Caml subset?

> And while I understand your general point about OCaml being a
> compiler,
> I think you'd have to admit that this line is at least blurred
> by the
> interactive toplevel *interpreter* /usr/bin/ocaml :-)  It is a
> subset of
> that program's functionality that I seek to imitate.

 Ok. If you're happy with a performance of the bytecode
interpreter - you can use such a feature (the easiest way is to
just create a custom runtime, see the documentation on how to
do it). But this is absolutely impossible for a native compilation.


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