On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 13:23 +0100, Thomas Fischbacher wrote:

> Actually, this would mean to turn this into a 100+ KB article on OCaml. 
> The question arises whether this is appropriate for a brief overview in 
> an encyclopedia.

I cannot answer that question, but the Wikipedia is littered
with silly articles on weird Java idioms and archaic C concepts.

For example the important concept of 'control inversion' 
is described as some kind of Java idiom. Like most idiomatic usage
of lame languages, it doesn't warrant a full scale article
to describe some workaround of a lame system -- instead
of describing a general concept -- in my opinion.

My point is -- more popular languages already pollute the
Wikipedia with considerable crap, so a well written
description of properties of Ocaml is warranted to
counter this rubbish -- 100KB if necessary!. IMHO. 

But not necessarily all in one place.

For example I would love if Jacques Garrigue would
spindle, fold, and mutilate some of his notes
on Polymorphic Variants, make a separate article
on that, and hang a link off the main Ocaml article.

In addition, there are surely entries on 'polymorphism'
and 'functional programming' and other such things which
have links to other articles which describe how various
languages provide those facilities .. and one can
envisage adding a link to an Ocaml specific article
on such topics.

-- 
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net