RE: [Sml-implementers] compilation management

[Andrew K. <ak...@mi...>]

I totally agree. Sorry I wasn't clearer in my message: I was
just offering a description of our own compilation model as
another *example* not as a proposal for adoption. I like Bob's
analogy with type inference - we need a common means of expressing
each compiler's particular model.

- Andrew.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Harper [mailto:Rob...@cs...]=20
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 10:28 PM
> To: 'Matthias Blume'; Andrew Kennedy
> Cc: Daniel C. Wang; Stephen Weeks;=20
> sml...@li...
> Subject: RE: [Sml-implementers] compilation management
>=20
>=20
> Just to be sure we're on the same page, let me say that I=20
> would not want to standardize on a TOOL, but rather a=20
> LANGUAGE for expressing separate compilation.  In particular,=20
> saying that CM could be made to generate one huge source file=20
> for those of us that don't implement CM is a non-starter.
>=20
> An anology: CM is like type inference; we want to specify the=20
> underlying explicitly typed syntax.
>=20
> We will send a brief summary of our compilation mechanism to=20
> this list shortly.
>=20
> Bob
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthias Blume [mailto:bl...@re...]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 11:09 AM
> To: Andrew Kennedy
> Cc: Daniel C. Wang; Stephen Weeks;=20
> sml...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Sml-implementers] compilation management
>=20
>=20
> Andrew Kennedy wrote:
> >=20
> > (A) Agree on some way to map top-level SML Module identifiers (for=20
> > structures, functors and signatures) to full file names identifying=20
> > the file that contains the single binding for that Module entity=20
> > (structure, functor or signature).
>=20
> Sorry.  I will NEVER agree to that!
>=20
> We had this discussion before in an OCaml vs. SML context.  A=20
> naming convention such as the above can be used by an=20
> implementation, but it should _not_ be the common ground on=20
> which we all live.  It is trivial to map implicit file naming=20
> such as the one you suggest to explicit naming, but not vice versa.
>=20
> As I said, I will try to come up with a simple (although=20
> perhaps verbose) and very explicit description format that we=20
> all can implement.  Systems such as CM or your implementation=20
> can take whatever scheme they use and _generate_
> the explicit format.   It is unlikely that we will ever agree on a
> high-level
> format (I for one will never agree to a modulename->filename=20
> mapping scheme, and others seem to think that such as scheme=20
> is the only way they can accept), so abstracting from this=20
> issue is the only way to go.
>=20
> Matthias
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Sml-implementers mailing list Sml...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sml-implementers
>=20