james woodyatt
>
> Contention among providers of foundation library code is to be
> expected— even celebrated.  Better news still would be an
> open market,
> holding a plethora of mutually incompatible *closed-source* library
> modules.  That would be the *real* indication that INRIA has
> gotten its
> euros worth in research spending.
>
> Vive la fragmentation!

Yeah, but C does have a standard library, so let's not overplay the
value of fragmentation.  Let's ask instead: is there any OCaml library
that right now, should uncontroversially be part of a standard?  If not,
a collection of 2 or 3 candidate libraries that should be groomed for
standard?  I liked Ben's comment about how the Linux people handle it,
this notion of an interim period of deciding what's adviseable to keep.


Cheers,                         www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every               Seattle, WA

"We live in a world of very bright people building
crappy software with total shit for tools and process."
                                - Ed Mckenzie
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.643 / Virus Database: 411 - Release Date: 3/25/2004

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