On Monday 04 February 2008 14:35:01 Jean-Marc EBER wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Without entering into a dialog on this list, LexiFi, whose name has been
> cited in this mail, wants to make the following clarification(s):

Thank you for clarifying.

> ...
> c. General purpose cleanups, small enhancements etc.: we inform Inria about
> them: Inria may or may not incorporate these patches.

This is exactly the work that I think we should be sharing and all benefitting 
from. I think everyone has reached an understanding on how beneficial this 
could be even if we disagree about how to achieve that goal.

> > . OCaml's top-level runs interpreted bytecode and, consequently, is many
> > times slower than the interactive sessions of "competing" language
> > implementations like SBCL (Lisp) and F#. Alain Frisch has already
> > implemented a native-code top-level for OCaml called "ocamlnat" in his
> > "natdynlink" fork of OCaml. I found this extremely useful and would like
> > it to be easier for other people to benefit from this work.
>
> Jon, please, be careful with your public statements here.
> The "natdynlink" branch (repeat after me, branch, _not_ fork) has been
> implemented by Alain Frisch when he was at Inria, with full knowledge of
> Xavier Leroy. The idea was that if this _branch_ worked, it was supposed to
> become mainstream; this is so true that it has been merged into... cvs HEAD
> !

Excellent! I was under the impression that ocamlnat was deleted in the merge 
but it appears to compile from the current CVS... :-)

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e