Re: Bug#479152: ITP: core -- Jane Street Capital's alternative standard library for OCaml
On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 08:32:11AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 09:32:16PM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
> > What about patching bin-prot syntax extension to produce "nothing" when
> > used... This way, everything still get compiled with "fake" bin-prot...
> > I think it will make the required patch smaller (i.e. you will have only
> > to patch where the serialization is used and not everywhere).
>
> Nice idea. Actually it will change what is being patched, as we will
> then patch bin-prot rather than core, but this sounds like a good idea.
>
> Still, it won't be enough to remove completely the need to patch core,
> as core has module interfaces which assume that bin-prot has generated
> something. One can then think to push your approach further and make
> bin-prot generate "assert false" functions rather than nothing, having
> static type correctness but runtime errors (which then would become
> harder to detect by buildds). Well, it seems like an interesting path,
> though not entirely trivial.
>
> Still, the best would be for bin-prot to support all archs. Maybe we
> should wait for the next round of upstream releases? I do hope that
> various people will push and/or push for supporting more archs. If
> nothing will change, we can move from the current very hackish solution
> to yours less hackish solution? (provided we can implement it properly)
BTW, i followed this only by far, but have you communicated with
upstream about this situation, and what is their opinion on this ?
If there is a need to patch cor/bin-proto, maybe the best way is to
provide the patch upstream and discuss it with them in order to not need
a patch in the future ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: