Hi Gerd,

Haskell people have been working on hierarchical libraries for some time and I 
think they've come up with a really meaningful organization. It makes much 
more sense than an alphabetical list of 100 libraries.

You don't need some kind of authority to manage the hierarchy either. It's a 
self-organizing system :)

Cheers,

On Wednesday 23 July 2003 16:20, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
> Namespaces are not only a technical problem, but also a matter of good
> organization. This is why almost every suggestion looks half-baked.
> Furthermore, it was a bit surprising for me that most participants of
> the discussion favoured hierarchical solutions, which would mean we need
> some kind of "authority" administering the hierarchy. Very unlikely that
> we ever get this, or can agree on it. (Don't forget that the Perl people
> are often system administrators, and they are used to this kind of
> management.) I really think that we should view namespaces as indexes to
> an open, distributed database of modules (if this problem ever gets
> acute), at least currently this would me more adequate to the grade of
> organization of the O'Caml community.
>
> Gerd

-- 
Eray Ozkural (exa) <erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr>
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara  KDE Project: http://www.kde.org
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo  Malfunction: http://mp3.com/ariza
GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B  EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C

-------------------
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