Jacques GARRIGUE wrote:
> ocaml gives you many ways to define an API for any
> functionality. And does not try to decide which is better. So you can
> only end up with duplicate libraries, according to personal tastes.

I don't mind whether a standard library uses classes or functors, or 
both; what I care about is that different parts of it should be able to 
interact easily with each other.  Therefore I'm delighted to see the 
discussion currently going on about integrating I/O channels across 
ExtLib, Camomile and ocamlnet.

It seems to me that different styles are suited to different situations. 
  For example, I think most people, regardless of their preferred 
programming style, would agree that you made the right choice by using 
an object-oriented style for LablGTK.  Someone who wants a Caml 
interface to GTK will almost certainly be happy to adapt to the style 
you chose.

Moreover, the same issue exists (though perhaps to a lesser extent) in 
many popular languages.  C++, for example, supports object-oriented and 
generic styles.  Lisp supports functional and object-oriented styles. 
Python supports imperative, object-oriented and functional styles.

I'm sure that, with sufficient goodwill, discussions like the ones going 
on now can lead to solutions that most people will be satisfied with.

> The 3rd point, I would rather see it as having more
> meta-documentation, ie information on libraries without having to
> download and install: requirements, extensiveness, quality of the
> documentation, user reviews...

Perhaps eventually GODI could support that kind of information.

Ben

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