[MLton-devel] CPU utilization

[Stephen Weeks]

> I definitely like the idea that the code I write is SML code, not MLton code.

You would still be required, as now, to "open MLton" or use eplicitly
qualified "MLton." identifiers.  So, it is clear when you are being
MLton-specific or not.  That is my current feeling about the right
mentality to have about portability: it is OK to provide non-portable
stuff, so long as it is very clear to the user know when they are
being non-portable.

The problem is that it is very difficult to write library stuff in a
portable way, so we would end up spending a lot of time figuring out
how to unify differences between the compilers and their basis
libraries, work around bugs in other compilers, and in the end still
need write some stubs that would just raise Fail.  It would be a lot
of extra work.  While portability is nice, spending a lot of time
encouraging people to use other compilers doesn't seem like a good
idea.  If our stuff is good enough and people want to use it, others
will build the stubs or do the ports to their compilers.  Or people
will simply use MLton.



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01
_______________________________________________
MLton-devel mailing list
MLton-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mlton-devel