Re: [MirageOS-devel] v1/v2/vN-- a discussion

[Thomas Gazagnaire <thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> anil also popped in and talked moderately excitedly about meta-ocaml, but i 
> don't know that enough to comment. other than it sounded jolly cool and 
> something that may be worth investigating to do some of the above in a more 
> publishable fashion ;)
> 
> so-- how much of that makes any sense, and (thomas) how much did i garble?
> 
Seems pretty accurate to me!

> + one problem not addressed but noted is that unit testing of the code 
> generation remains a problem, and perhaps is more significant if library 
> maintainers are expected to provide this. (from my pov though, this tends 
> towards black magic currently anyway so unclear that this is any worse than 
> the current state.)

That's clearly the main issue currently with the code generator: it's full of 
black magic. If we move the code generators into separate library we should 
also provide a nice API to generate such code and an easy way to test that we 
just don't generate garbage. I think that's the main blocker -- I'm pretty 
happy with all the rest.

Thomas
_______________________________________________
MirageOS-devel mailing list
MirageOS-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel