On 17 Sep 2013, at 17:57, David Matthews <david.matthews at prolingua.co.uk> wrote:
I have uploaded the source for Poly/ML 5.5.1 to the SourceForge site so it is now officially released. I still need to create installers for Windows. The release notes at http://www.polyml.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html give a general overview of the changes over the last year. There have been no big changes which is the reason it's 5.5.1 rather than 5.6.
David _______________________________________________ polyml mailing list polyml at inf.ed.ac.uk http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
Thanks for the new release.
I have a few issues/questions.
1. I?ve noticed a change in evaluation behaviour between PolyML 5.5.0 and 5.5.1. Given the functions:
fun foo () = let val () = print "x\n" in SOME end
fun bar f = List.mapPartial (Option.compose (Int.~, f ())) [1, 2, 3]
then under 5.5.0 ?bar foo? gives us
x val it = [~1, ~2, ~3]: int list
whereas under 5.5.1 we get
x x x val it = [~1, ~2, ~3]: int list
What?s happening here?
2. I?ve installed Poly/ML 5.5.1 using MacPorts (Mac OS 10.8.5). When using polyc I get a couple of warning messages, i.e.
$ polyc -o foo foo.o
gives me
ld: warning: could not create compact unwind for _ffi_call_unix64: does not use RBP or RSP based frame ld: warning: PIE disabled. Absolute addressing (perhaps -mdynamic-no-pic) not allowed in code signed PIE, but used in area1 from vimpoly.o. To fix this warning, don't compile with -mdynamic-no-pic or link with -Wl,-no_pie
Is there any way to suppress this? When using cc for linking, one can get rid of these messages by adding
-Wl,-no_compact_unwind,-no_pie
Is this advisable or is there a better solution?
3. I?ve managed to build HOL4 using 5.5.1 but we have lost our prompt. My understanding is as follows:
$ foo | poly
suppresses the prompt
$ foo | poly -i
brings the prompt back. However, if program ?bar? is based on using PolyML.rootFunction (as HOL4 is) then we get
$ bar
prompt
$ foo | bar
no prompt.
Since piping (a quotation filter) is used with HOL4, we get the latter. How do we implement the ?-i? option to get our prompt back?
Thanks, Anthony