On Sun, 2004-05-16 at 06:19, Yaron Minsky wrote:
> Nice.  The weird thing about the Nat module is that it's completely
> undocumented.  Is there any reason to think it wil be stable between
> revisions? 

Yes, the Ocaml people care about that.

>  For instance, does Xavier's reimplementation have the same
> Num module with the same interface as the previous one?

Yes. I've been using Nat for ages and had no problems
with upgrades.

> I guess my real question is: why is Nat undocumented?

Documentation requires work, its fairly easy to guess
what Nat does from the function names .. :)

-- 
John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net
voice: 061-2-9660-0850, 
snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia
Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net



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