Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
Re: [Caml-list] Namespace proposal
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Ohad Rodeh <ORODEH@i...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Namespace proposal

I liked the "ocaml forever" bit :-).

My personal experience has been that all the <reasonable> modifications
I've requested from the Caml folk were carried out. On the other hand, I
easily think of some <non-reasonable> language modifications. As long
as the core developers are willing to listen to the community, I don't
there is a big problem.

By the way, I do think we need some kind of package/namespace approach.
My personal contribution was the "emrg" mini-tool, adapted from the
distribution. Also, the Caml team was convinced enough that namespaces were
an issue to add the "-pack" option to v3.05.

Just my two cents,


Ohad Rodeh
tel: +972-3-6401641
IBM Haifa, storage research

                      Michael Vanier                                                                                                        
                      <mvanier@cs.caltech.ed        To:                                                            
                      u>                            cc:                                                            
                      Sent by:                      Subject:  Re: [Caml-list] Namespace proposal                                            
                      12/08/2002 20:31                                                                                                      

The namespace proposal brings up a related issue.  Is there any interest in
having a more formal process for making requests for enhancements to the
ocaml language analogous to (e.g.) the Python Enhancement Proposals (PEPs)
for python ( or similar processes for perl,
ruby, and java?  I can see advantages and disadvantages to this approach.
The advantage is that there is an organized record of proposals, commentary
on proposals, etc.  The disadvantage is that I suspect that a lot of
feature requests might be unimplementable or require a huge amount of
research to see if they're implementable (e.g. generically overloaded
operators), as opposed to PEPs, which are generally fairly trivial.  What
do people think?

Ocaml forever,

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list:

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: