Browse thread
Re: [Caml-list] OCaml standard library improvement
-
Amit Dubey
- Maxence Guesdon
-
Brian Hurt
- Nicolas George
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Nicolas George <nicolas.george@e...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] OCaml standard library improvement |
Le tridi 3 ventôse, an CCXI, Brian Hurt a écrit : > - We shouldn't be afraid to add functions/functionality to libraries. > There should never be a string2 library, let alone a string17 library. [...] > So the string library would be a collection of simple routines. None of > the routines in string call each other, or any common 'infrastructure' > routines. I think you misunderstoud the problem I was mentionning. A string library should be one module, we agree. Let's say it is "String". Then as soon as you use one function of the String module, the resulting binary will hold _all_ the code in the String module. If you have a lot of functions in the module (and this is what we want), you have a huge binary. Berk. As far as I know, there is no hack to avoid it. It would be necessary to rethink the format of the .cmo or .cma files to allow that.