Re: [MLton-devel] mlton bug

[Stephen W. <sw...@sw...>]

> Anyways, I'm not sure what we expect -basis none to really do.  It's
> pretty much useless -- types aren't even in scope, so you can't even write
> down ffi-s.

The old "-use-basis-library false" did have the primitive types in
scope (via the Env.addPrim function) and one could write _prim and
_ffi declarations.  It was useful for writing very small programs.

> Maybe the right thing to do is to elaborate prefix and suffix inside the
> basis implementation. 

I'm confused.  It looks to me like this is what happens in the code
you checked in.

> It's a little complicated since prefix and suffix are -basis
> dependent, but I think it's doable. 

Oh, do you mean using the same prefix and suffix in the same basis no
matter what the -basis flag? 

> Of course, then -show-basis-used is going to have weird results,
> since it will look like more of the basis is used than is available
> (which is true).

I'm still confused.  Do you mean that with your proposed change that
"more of the basis is used than is available" or that that is the case
right now?

Anyways, I'd be fine with having -basis none bind the primitive types,
tycons, and excons, as the old -use-basis-library false did.

Also, since the whole idea of -basis none is to keep the code as small
as possible, I'd vote for adding a call to Posix.Process.exit in the
suffix, but not OS.Proces.exit.