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
Saving the OCaml interpreter state
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Harrison, John R <john.r.harrison@i...>
Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Saving the OCaml interpreter state
By the way, I checked with someone who knows Poly/ML, and it turns out

the new mechanism can still be used to get save/restore of sessions just
by nominating

the Poly/ML toplevel as the function to export as a binary. So although
the mechanism

has changed, the basic support for saving and restoring sessions has not


I would very much like to see some such facility in OCaml. How hard is
it? I vaguely

remember some apparent problem with closures being allocated on the
stack, but I

don't recall the details.





[] On Behalf Of Yaron Minsky
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:52 PM
To: Jon Harrop
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Saving the OCaml interpreter state


You should check with someone who knows better, but I suspect that if
you become a member of the OCaml consortium (which is fairly cheap) you
would have the rights to do what you propose.


On 4/12/07, Jon Harrop <> wrote:

On Thursday 12 April 2007 16:53, Harrison, John R wrote:
> | A new version of Poly ML also doesn't have the persistent storage
> system.
> Thanks; I didn't know that, and it comes as quite a surprise given 
> Poly's history.
> Still, my question about OCaml stands. More specifically, I want to
> know whether the facility to save and restore state doesn't exist
> because
>  * None of the main OCaml developers particularly care about it 
> or
>  * There are non-trivial technical problems implementing it.

Like Michael, I am also not going to answer your question (sorry!) but
can I
just say that, as a commercial developer, there would be significant 
incentive to write a killer IDE for OCaml if the current top-level was
for commercial use, e.g. part of the stdlib.

Having been playing with F# recently, I'm starting to appreciate some of
features afforded by a decent IDE. However, both OCaml and F# lack
found in the other and, more importantly, lack many features that could
hugely beneficial, particularly to users of the interactive systems.

Marshalling top-level state is one such feature.

Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. 
OCaml for Scientists

Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
Beginner's list:
Bug reports: