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 (12:32) |
From: | Richard Jones <rich@a...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Wanted: your feedback on the hierarchy of OCaml Batteries Included |
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 01:15:39PM +0100, David Teller wrote: > Do you see any better way of managing the complexity of all this? I'm still not getting where the benefit of having this hierarchy is, except that it adds a Java-like complexity and will create hard-to-manage churn if a module ever moves. API changes are handled really badly in OCaml, ironically because of the lack of a textual preprocessor. You can't just write this every time lablgtk / calendar / latest culprit decides to change their API: #ifdef LABLGTK < 210 let icon = GMisc.image () in icon#set_stock icon_type ~size:size; icon #else let icon = GMisc.image () in icon#set_stock `DIALOG_ERROR; icon#set_icon_size `DIALOG; icon #endif (Well, you can run -pp cpp, but that breaks other stuff) Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat