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
[OSR] Standard syntax extensions ?
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2008-04-25 (16:59)
From: Berke Durak <berke.durak@g...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [OSR] Standard syntax extensions ?
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Richard Jones <> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:53:36PM +0200, Berke Durak wrote:
> > We absolutely need a standard serialization solution.
> >
> > I'm thinking of Sexplib of course but it could be another one.  The
> reason
> > it must be standard is that it's difficult to provide
> > serialization/deserialization functions outside the imlementation.
> It isn't though.  There are several serialization modules (sexplib,
> deriving, ...), all of them are packaged up so using them is a simple
> 'apt-get' away.

But we need at least to enrich standard container datatypes with
serialization functions...  Do we want to have n copies of each datatype
for each serialization library? I think we must agree on one such solution
and ensure it is always available.

As those solutions all involve syntax extensions, this means that it must go
into the list of standard sytnax extensions.

> So Sexplib should be a standard extension, or better, it should be
> included
> > in the compiler and used for the .cmo/.cmi/.cmxa files.
> Why?

That would allow people to easily write tools that examine object files
relying on the unnecessarily britlle binary format.  At the very least you
could open it in a text editor and see if everything's OK inside, or simply
it.  Yes, there is CMI grep, but that one would be even better.  Do this,
you will instantly see 10 to 20 new metatools for Ocaml.
Berke Durak