10:34 <jtra> Hello. Is ocaml byte code usable as target from another language? Is it well documented and stable?

11:50 <__DL__> jtra: yes no and yes (I mean yes it can be a target, it is no "well documented" but you could found some documentation, and it is relativly stable (at least for the "core" part).

11:51 <__DL__> (By the way, are you still there ?)

12:34 <jtra> __DL__: I'm here. Thanks

12:37 <__DL__> you could look there http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lebotlan/docaml_html/english/english004.html

12:38 <__DL__> and the byterun/interp.c file of the ocaml source...

12:39 <__DL__> and ocaml -dinstr (or ocamlc -dinstr) to see how ocaml generate it

12:51 <jtra> __DL__: Thanks again. I have to go.

13:12 <drlion> is it possible to get a reference to a no-argument method? e.g, i have a method called initialize and i want to pass it to Thread.create. i'm thinking since initialize takes no arguments it must not be a function, yet it's capable of, e.g., running imperative code. can you help me get this straight?

13:28 <karryall> drlion: use smthg like Thread.create (fun obj -> obj#initialize) obj

13:38 <__DL__> drlion : or you can use fun () -> obj #meth

13:39 <Smerdyakov> A meth lab??

13:39 <__DL__> by the way, lablgtk/lablgtk2 use the following convetion : a method with no arument have no side effect

13:40 <__DL__> (meth is a name for a method ... not a meth lab...)

14:04 <drlion> __DL__: ah. so they would pass a unit just to indicate side effects?

14:05 <drlion> karryall: thanks!

17:40 <drlion> hey ocaml says that my method "has type foo where .. is unbound". what's that supposed to mean?

18:08 <__DL__> That mean that there is un unkwon type in the type of your method.

18:09 <__DL__> class cannot be implicitly polymorphic. All polymorphisme must be explicit...

20:40 <Riastradh> Having fun collecting underscores, pattern__?

21:13 <pattern__> :(

22:32 <drlion> what's the difference between an immutable val and a let binding wrapping object?

22:33 <Riastradh> Rephrase, please.

22:39 <drlion> nothing like an example: class foo = let x = 123 in object val y = 123 method m1 = x method m2 = y end

22:39 <drlion> i just don't see the reason to use immutable fields, but obviously i'm missing something

22:40 <Riastradh> Well, does it look nicer to you to use 'val' for mutable fields and 'let' for immutable fields?

22:42 <drlion> not really, no, but since i sometimes cannot use 'val' -- and have to use 'let' outside the 'object .. end' -- i realized i don't know why i ever use 'val' in the first place

22:42 <Riastradh> What cases can you not use 'val' in?

22:43 <drlion> let's say i need to use one val to define another

22:43 <Riastradh> You can't use 'and' with 'val'?

22:44 <Riastradh> I guess not...

22:45 <drlion> no, but that wouldn't really help anyway. in that case i would need something like val foo = 123 in val bar = foo + 2

22:46 <drlion> so instead i do class foo = let foo = 123 in let bar = foo + 2 in object .. end