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] Recursive lists
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2004-10-17 (13:41)
From: Alex Baretta <alex@b...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] About Obj (was Recursive lists)
brogoff wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Alex Baretta wrote:
>>We already have a very strong core language, which is fully type safe.
> So, the core language should be frozen in its current state?

Most definitely not! I'm trying to point out that part of the evolution 
of Ocaml-as-a-tool depends on the evolution of its libraries, which by 
all means are entitled to make use of Obj and C-FFI, especially if the 
author, a typically professional Caml breeder, makes the effort of 
making the correctness proofs where the type-checker accepts code by a 
leap of faith.

> Is marshalling part of the core language? If so, then the core is not fully
> type safe.

The Marshal module is not really *core*. It's a hack worth having until 
the compiler will support type reflection to the extent of recognizing 
whether a marshalled module is or is not compatibile with the value 
being defined. Again, my point is that it's better to have an unsafe 
feature than not have the feature at all. I am one of those who complain 
with Xavier about marshalling, and I'm waiting for the revised 
implementation. But, meanwhile, with some care on my part, my software 
already compiles and runs.


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