Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
additions to standard library?
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Pierre Weis <Pierre.Weis@i...>
Subject: Re: additions to standard library?
> It is also not my intention to get over-featured libraries. I was just
> wondering which would be the best way to propose reasonable additions
> and/or contribute code. I am not out for a specific way to do this - I just
> would like to know which way would be most appropriate for INRIA. It would
> be disappointing for both sides if unwise decisions in this respect lead to
> something like "diverging development".
> At the moment I have the feeling that some modules are indeed rather
> under-featured. One can really not say that e.g. the "Char"-module boasts
> with rich features, and some others (like the mentioned Set-module) would
> also not suffer if functions like "partition" or "for_all", etc., are
> added, especially considering the fact that these "settish" functions even
> exist in the List-module.

You're right: for the time being our libraries are in some sense
minimalist (due to the ancient times problems with memory capacities
of micro computers and 1.4 Mb floppies). It may be time now to get
reasonably featured libraries. For instance, you mentioned few
functions that sound adequate to be added (in the first place because
there are not a zillion of them).

> > On the other hand, I don't think it would be a bad thing if more
> > people contributed to the development of O'Caml.
> Definitely! Though, there should be some standard way to contribute so that
> people don't step on each other's toes. Naturally, the opinion of the main
> developers should set the direction...
> > Anyway, you can always set up a repository on Sourceforge or any
> > similar site and see what happens. :-)
> I have thought about this, but I am not sure whether this provokes what you
> mentioned: that the "regular" and the "extended" library diverge. On the
> other hand, it seems that Sourceforge really provides for great features
> for free software projects (CVS-repository, mailing lists, bug tracking,
> patch manager, etc...), which would reduce at least the administrative
> effort on INRIA's side...

We also have the tools you mentioned to develop the Caml compiler
(``CVS-repository, mailing lists, bug tracking, patch manager,
etc...''), except may be ``etc...'':), so that there is no need to set
up another site to develop the Caml standard library (on the other
hand the use of SourceForge may be very relevant for other
cooperative developments out of the Caml compiler). In any means we
must avoid confusion and divergence with 2 different standard libraries.

Caml users may contribute to the wish list associated to the caml bugs
tracking system: you may contribute in a useful way if you also
provide the code associated to your wishes.

Best regards,

Pierre Weis

INRIA, Projet Cristal,