[MLton-devel] monomorphisation and the opus

[Suresh Jagannathan]

It seems then that we have consensus on the following:

1. A description of MLton's monomorphisation algorithm can be
provided informally with references to previous work in lieu of
a formal proof of correctness.

2. There is benefit in describing how monomorphisation can
be extended to deal with polymorphic recursion.   I can take
a shot at writing a paragraph on how such functionality
may be supported, but if you've got text already that you'd
like to contribute that would be great.



On Friday 09 May 2003 06:19 pm, Stephen Weeks wrote:
> > Any way, Matthew is right that MLton doesn't do polymorphic recursion, 
> > which is  absolutely  fine with me, but there is a real argument to talk
> > about this in the opus I think.  One is that it shows the Haskell people
> > that  they  are not  at  all unreachable.
>
> This point makes sense to me.  One point of the opus should be to
> convince people to try whole program compilation in other situations
> besides SML, either by modifying MLton's front end, or by applying
> some of the ideas from MLton in a new compiler.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa Clara
> The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux enterprise solutions
> www.enterpriselinuxforum.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> MLton-devel mailing list
> MLton-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mlton-devel


-------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa Clara
The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux enterprise solutions
www.enterpriselinuxforum.com

_______________________________________________
MLton-devel mailing list
MLton-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mlton-devel