Re: [Rd] R strings, null-terminated or size delimited?

From: Guillaume Yziquel <>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:44:22 +0100

Duncan Murdoch a écrit :

>> I believe I should. I'd like the OCaml / R binding to be closely knit 
>> to R internals. One reason would be for speed, the other being that 
>> I'd like to make use of camlp4 to write syntax extensions to mix OCaml 
>> and R syntax. It's therefore important for me not to rely on the R 
>> interpreter to be active when building R values. Or when marshaling R 
>> values via OCaml. There are numerous other issues aside this one.

> You are probably not going to be able to do that. Take your example of
> the promise below: to evaluate a promise, you need to evaluate the
> expression attached to it in the R interpreter. (This is discussed in
> the R Language Definition.)
> You can put probably put together simple R objects like integer arrays
> without having R running, but anything substantial isn't going to be
> feasible.
> Duncan Murdoch

That's precisely the issue. I want to map a functional language to a functional language. And keep the same evaluation semantics. I do not (yet?) see why it should not be feasible.

If this is done properly, OCaml could then compile R code natively. That would be really nice. There would be other advantages in integrating the two languages cleanly.

So, taking the example of promises, I need to map it to its OCaml semantic equivalent, which seems to be a Lazy.t structure. That doesn't seem (yet) unfeasible.

Thank you for your pointer to the R Language Definition. Starting by R Internals was perhaps a bit brutal.

All the best,

      Guillaume Yziquel

______________________________________________ mailing list
Received on Sun 22 Nov 2009 - 00:47:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun 22 Nov 2009 - 12:50:46 GMT