On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Benjamin C. Pierce wrote:
> I'm all in favor of improving the standard library, but...
> 
>   1) I agree that such a project will be most useful if there is some
>      kind of strong unifying vision
> 
>   2) I suggest looking at the SML Basis Library for ideas -- the people
>      that designed it thought a *lot* about consistent naming and such.
>      (In fact, would it be a bad idea just to *copy* the SML basis APIs
>      verbatim?)

That's a great idea! There are a few things that would need to change, of 
course, like transforming tupled arguments to curried ones, and probably 
changing interCap function names to caml_style_underscore_separated ones
but I think just staying as close as possible to the SML Basis makes a lot of 
sense for a number of reasons. 

-- Brian


-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners