03:33 <d_bot> <beans> What is the reasoning on giving a different syntax to value constructors and regular functions? I have worked a bit in haskell and they allow for value constructors to be treated exactly like regular functions (except for the different naming conventions) even to the point of currying them. Is there a specific reason OCaml opted to differentiate between them?

04:05 <sleepydog> beans: http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml-list/2001/08/47db53a4b42529708647c9e81183598b.en.html

12:23 <d_bot> <Aram> at some point in the past, I read some article that mentioned in passing that in OCaml some pass of the compiler (?) precalculates all possible stack traces, and encodes them in some small integer, so passing a stack trace around is cheap.

12:23 <d_bot> <Aram> 1. is this true? how does it work with recursive functions?

12:23 <d_bot> <Aram> 2. if it is true, where can I read more about it?

13:01 <d_bot> <ggole> That doesn't sound right at all.

16:22 <d_bot> <Aram> that's what I thought but I can't find the original article.

16:23 <d_bot> <Aram> it can work for non recursive parts of the call stack, at least.

16:23 <d_bot> <Aram> so you could get a lot of compression that way.

16:47 <d_bot> <Drup> I've never heard of anything like that

16:48 <d_bot> <Drup> Maybe for one of the memory debugers, but I doubt it

18:18 <sleepydog> anyone know if/how i can generate odig docs of the stdlib? `odig doc stdlib` fails for me

18:19 <sleepydog> ah, it's `odig doc ocaml`