Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
The OCaml Community (aka back from the Developer Days)
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Hezekiah M. Carty <hcarty@a...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: The OCaml Community (aka back from the Developer Days)
On Jan 28, 2008 3:35 PM, Loup Vaillant <loup.vaillant@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/1/28, Hezekiah M. Carty <hcarty@atmos.umd.edu>:
> > On Jan 28, 2008 2:49 PM, Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday 28 January 2008 15:43:22 Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
> > > > On 28-01-2008, Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Monday 28 January 2008 13:35:34 Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
> > > > >> I think we don't have discuss about dropping what is currently in the
> > > > >> standard library. INRIA will keep everything.
> > > > >> ...
> > > > >> Nobody will thrown the standard library.
> > > > >
> > > > > So we cannot fix the stdlib?
> > > >
> > > > Yep, this is what is called "bug compatible" library... But you can
> > > > create one on your own and remove the one from INRIA (hints
> > > > -nopervasives on your compiler command line).
> > >
> > > Then I don't understand how this improves upon the current situation.
> > >
> >
> > My understanding is that the benefits would come from having a richer,
> > community developed "official" OCaml distribution.  So the stdlib
> > would stay in place, but extra items would be included as well.  For
> > example, package ExtLib and some commonly useful Camlp4 extensions
> > along with the distribution .tar.gz/.exe/.dmg.  If I understood the
> > meeting transcription in IRC, the official OCaml folks at INRIA would
> > bless this as the proper way to get and install OCaml once the
> > community structure is in place.
>
> Could a patched version of the stdlib and/or compiler could be bundled
> in such a distribution? This is the only way to have a tail recursive
> List.map, for instance.
>
> I suppose working around the license can be done without too much
> hassle? If I understand, the distro maker have to distribute the
> unmodified sources and the patches, so the user have to first apply
> the patches, then compile whats need to be (possibly using a script to
> automate the whole process).
>
> Loup
>

The library license is LGPL, so the stdlib could be changed in the
distribution without extra licensing trouble.  However, that is
probably not the way to go if we want to maintain bug-for-bug
compatibility.  For the example you mentioned, ExtLib already has a
tail recursive List.map, so if that were included it (or something
similar) in the official distribution then developers will know that
"open ExtList" will provide them with a tail recursive List.map
implementation without the end user having to install libraries out of
the official distribution.

I do not know the details of the compiler license (QPL) but I think
modifications would have to be distributed as patches and then applied
on the user's end.  I also do not know how this would affect binary
distributions of OCaml.

-- 
Hezekiah M. Carty
Graduate Research Assistant
University of Maryland
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science