On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 09:36:02AM +0100, Bünzli Daniel wrote:
>> - having a common spec for several libs makes more sense if they can share 
>> common types; maybe you should use polymorphic variants instead of regular 
>> ones?
>
> Agreed. In xmlm these variants become polymorphic in the next version.

that's really a bad idea; As a user of xmlm, I hope you're going to
re-consider. the polymorphic variant namespace is so easily polluted by
random "value" that library should never use them or at least doesn't
advertise them as public interface.

-- 
Vincent Hanquez