[MLton] HOL's Moscow ML implementation, and pushing MLton to emulate it

[Andreas Rossberg]

Stephen Weeks wrote:
> 
> One thing that occurs to me about the embedded interpreter is that it
> will be used to develop code that will then transition to the
> monolith, which is compiled by MLton.  So, it is important to have as
> much compatibility between the languages used by the interpreter and
> MLton as possible.  Because of differences between SML implementations
> (mostly libraries, but sometimes language too), it may thus make the
> most sense for the embedded interpreter to use MLton's front-end and
> libraries.

Do you really think so? Aren't you essentially saying that the standard 
(for language and library) is mostly useless then?

You are assuming that any non-trivial program will likely touch 
non-portable corners of the language. I don't believe that's the case, 
and I would consider it a disastrous situation for a standard (the 
separate compilation issue already is headache enough, but it does not 
come up here).

-- 
Andreas Rossberg, rossberg@ps.uni-sb.de

Let's get rid of those possible thingies!  -- TB