Browse thread
Wanted: your feedback on the hierarchy of OCaml Batteries Included
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2008-11-18 (13:26) |
From: | Daniel_Bünzli <daniel.buenzli@e...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Wanted: your feedback on the hierarchy of OCaml Batteries Included |
Le 18 nov. 08 à 13:15, David Teller a écrit : > But, to keep things ordered, we will still need modules > [Threads.Threads], [Threads.Mutex], [Threads.RMutex]... > [CoThreads.Threads], [CoThreads.Mutex]... and, well, that's a > hierarchy > already. If you include in batteries an external package that has its own hierarchy and is designed to be opened I don't mind having that hierarchy. In that case you can just add the new toplevel entry CoThread. And if I want to use CoThread, I just open CoThreads, not Control.Concurrency.CoThreads. Just try to keep it as flat as possible, don't try to force modules in an ad-hoc hierarchical taxonomy to try to sort out modules. I don't care if the toplevel list of modules is three hundred pages long if there is an efficient mean to access their documentation (like tags). I do however care a lot if it becomes bureaucratic to be able to _use_ a module in my code. Le 18 nov. 08 à 13:22, Richard Jones a écrit : > Easy - look at CPAN[1]. If you want to scale a project you have to > make decisions that allow a distributed network of people to > cooperate, without needing too much central coordination. But (unfortunately, sorry to repeat that) Batteries is not a CPAN like initiative. It aims at giving a library of modules/syntax extensions selected by the library maintainers, as such it is inherently centralized and I don't think that questions (1) or (2) are actually pertinent for the project. Best, Daniel