Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
Wanted: your feedback on the hierarchy of OCaml Batteries Included
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Maxence Guesdon <maxence.guesdon@i...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Wanted: your feedback on the hierarchy of OCaml Batteries Included
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:46:24 +0100
"Paolo Donadeo" <p.donadeo@gmail.com> wrote:

> Couldn't we take inspiration from the Python standard library [1]?
> Python hasn't namespace but is provided with a module system similar
> to OCaml *and* the standard library is really impressive.
> 
> And nobody can say Python is a bureaucratic language like Java :-)
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.python.org/doc/2.5.2/lib/lib.html

Hello,

I think a hierarchy in the documentation is very useful: it helps beginners
understand the big picture about all available modules and help developers
find the functions they look for. But in the code, I think it is really
more convenient to only have one level of "standard" modules.

By the way, I, too, always prefix idents with the module they come from,
(like in List.length) and only "open" a module to use fields and
constructors, so using Data.Containers.List.length or whatever is longer
than "List.length" is not an option. Having a shortcut "List" for
Data.Containers.List does not convince me, because the problem will remain
with modules with no shortcut.

So hierarchy in documentation: yes; in the code: no.

Regards,

-- 
Maxence Guesdon                           http://yquem.inria.fr/~guesdon/
Service Expérimentation et Développements https://devel.inria.fr/rocq/
INRIA Paris-Rocquencourt                  http://www.inria.fr/rocquencourt/