Hah, I scoured the list archives for weeks looking for just that 
message :P,
and I didn't find it. I guess my search skills are unl33t. Anyway, that 
answers
a lot of my questions. It seems the trade offs do not favor shared 
libraries at all.

On May 17, 2004, at 7:51 AM, Olivier Andrieu wrote:

>  Eric Stokes [Mon, 17 May 2004]:
>> Yes, I realized when I started this thread that all of these issues
>> would arise. I know it is a nasty problem to do type safe shared
>> libraries. The feature I am most interested in is #2,
>> upgradeability, #3 is a close second. So building a less brittle
>> but still type safe linker would be necessary. My question really
>> is, do you all have any interest in doing so. It seems like it
>> would be an interesting project with practical benefits.
>
> Hi,
>
> these questions have already been raised on the list (it does not mean
> they're not worthy of being mentionned again :), so you may be
> interested by this in-depth reply from Xavier:
>
>   http://tinyurl.com/2ywsu
>
> -- 
>    Olivier

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