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
Not really a bug but...
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2007-06-16 (10:04)
From: Christophe TROESTLER <Christophe.Troestler+ocaml@u...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Not really a bug but...
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Alain Frisch <> wrote:
> Jon Harrop wrote:
> > Any chance of changing the semantics of string literals so they aren't static?
> A simple Camlp4 syntax extension is enough to turn any literal "foobar"
> into String.copy "foobar". (Except it doesn't work because of format
> strings.)  If it were done automatically, there would be a penalty for
> the common case of immutable strings; to avoid it, you'd need to lift
> constant literals out of abstractions, which is not very nice.

As a side question, any chance of seeing a compiler flag to treat
strings in an immutable way (so as to restrict their mutability to
some modules only)?