Re: Core screwed up Utop.

I sort of figured it out, at least for the user on my Mac that I use more
often.  I just did

*$ brew upgrade ocaml* and after that *$ opam install utop* and presto!
I've got Utop back!  Good thing to because the default top-level isn't that
good compared to Utop.  Utop is really good stuff, especially for newbies
like me who are still figuring out what Ocaml is all about.


On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Kenneth Miller [email protected]
[ocaml_beginners] <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> With opam, you can switch your compiler version with just a command.
>
>
> On Saturday, September 24, 2016 11:14 PM, "Douglas Lewit [email protected]
> [ocaml_beginners]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> But I did use opam!  Or at least I thought I did.    :-(     Oh well, I'm
> glad this is not my only computer!!!
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Kenneth Miller
> [email protected] [ocaml_beginners] <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> You did all that stuff manually when you could have been using opam??
>
>
> On Saturday, September 24, 2016 6:20 PM, "Douglas Lewit [email protected]
> [ocaml_beginners]" <ocaml_beginners@yahoogroups. com
> <[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I went on github ( a real computer jungle for sure! ) and upgraded to
> Ocaml 4.03.  Then I installed Core, which I believe is a library containing
> all of Jane Street's contributions to the Ocaml language.  That screwed up
> my Utop installation, so I tried to reinstall Utop.  No success with that.
> There were many error messages, but the primary failure had to do with a
> dependency called "*lwt*".  I did a Google search and discovered that
> some other Ocaml users have had problems with this dependency as well.  I'm
> not really sure how to fix it.  I can still use Ocaml's default top-level,
> which is okay, but Utop is really fantastic!  Utop is way better than
> Ocaml's default top-level.  Any suggestions?  Much appreciated.
>
> Best,
>
> Douglas Lewit
>
> P.S.  Could someone provide some feedback on the following code?  It works
> well for getting every nth member of a list, but isn't there an easier way
> to do this?  I just thought it was a lot of work to accomplish a more or
> less simple task.  Thanks.
>
> *let everyNth ls n = *
> *     let rec everynth lst m = *
> *                match lst with *
> *                |[ ] -> [ ]*
> *                |head :: tail -> if m mod n = 0 then head :: everynth
> tail (m + 1)*
> *                                       else everynth tail (m + 1) in *
> *                everynth ls 1 ;;*
>
> An interesting side note here.  This recursive function can be implemented
> in Ruby, but of course the syntax is a tiny bit different.  ( For example,
> instead of match lst with [ ] or head :: tail you would do something like
> if lst == [ ] then [ ] else head, *tail = lst ......... etc, etc.  But
> what's really interesting is that with Ruby the inner function must be
> declared as a lambda expression.  If it's a regular function defined using
> the "def" keyword then the inner function cannot "see" the variable n.
> It's interesting to me how Ruby and Ocaml not only have different syntax
> but also somewhat different rules regarding the scope of variables within
> functions and nested functions.  Ruby of course is mostly object-oriented,
> but its creator was a very avid LISP programmer and for that reason decided
> to endow Ruby with certain important functional features.  So even though
> Ruby is mostly object-oriented the language has some powerful functional
> features that remind me a lot of Ocaml, LISP, Haskell, Erlang, etc, etc.
> For example, Ruby does a pretty good job at recursion, currying, etc.
> Okay, that's it for now.  Thanks!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>