Maxence Guesdon wrote:

>Dans son style inimitable, John Goerzen écrivait:
>
>  
>
>>>Sorry, the real start of the whole discussion is here:
>>>http://caml.inria.fr/archives/200403/msg00091.html
>>>      
>>>
>>Got it.  We seem to be e-mailing past each other a bit here.
>>
>>Anyway, I've been reading that thread and haven't really seen anyone
>>defending the standard library yet.  I found this message particularly
>>compelling:
>>
>>http://caml.inria.fr/archives/200403/msg00166.html
>>
>>And Xavier's reply:
>>
>>http://caml.inria.fr/archives/200403/msg00171.html
>>
>>Which, if I may boil several pages down into a few characters, seems to
>>say "We know it sucks, but don't have time to fix it quickly."  That
>>does not translate, in my mind, to "your complaints are invalid", which
>>is what you seem to be saying.  So I still don't understand where you're
>>coming from.
>>    
>>
>
>I'm not saying "your complaints are invalid", i'm just (personnally) 
>tired of always reading the same discussions again and again.
>
>  
>
>>All of which, though, is somewhat beside the point.  How are we going to
>>*fix* it?
>>    
>>
>
>Why not start by merging your lib with Extlib ?
>
>- m
>  
>

I'm not a well-known or simply good programmer, just my few cents, but 
if the library is that buggy, it is perhaps more useful to refactor some 
part of it ?

--
Matthieu BRUCHER
Etudiant en 3ème année à SUPELEC
Option Information, Signaux, Mesures

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