Re: libcamlrun.so
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 08:56:56AM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> I don't think it is a good idea. I think there are probably good reasons
> why it does not exist upstream.
>
> Since it is a library dedicated at internals, its API and ABI are probably
> not stable, and does not have to be.
>
> So, I'd suggest we don't add some unnecessary mess (dealing with shared
> objects and their breakages, that is) to something which works fine already.
Well, I'm hoping that the necessary patches will go into upstream
which makes the point moot. However, I don't understand your point
that having libcamlrun.so is somehow more "messy" than having
libcamlrun.a. In both cases there will be programs depending on the
exact same API. libcamlrun is the bytecode interpreter, and is fully
documented in the official manual. It's not some sort of "internals".
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, CTO Merjis Ltd.
Merjis - web marketing and technology - http://merjis.com
Team Notepad - intranets and extranets for business - http://team-notepad.com
Reply to: