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: Dario Teixeira <darioteixeira@y...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Wanted: your feedback on the hierarchy of OCaml Batteries Included
Hi,

> I personally prefer the hierarchy but, once again, the majority
> may disagree. So if you believe this is better, the next logical
> step would be to design a full and consistent list of modules
> including all the modules which already appear in the current
> version of Batteries, and with some space left for OCamlnet,
> OCamlnae, Reins, Camomile, ULex, Camlp4, CoThreads and a few
> others. I truly mean it, if you can provide us with something
> you consider more comfortable and as future-proof, we may adopt it.

Paraphrasing Einstein, I think the hierarchy should be as flat
as possible, but no flatter.  For example, I see no reason to
materialise in the hierarchy the separation between persistent
and mutable data structures.  The should be a documentation
issue.  However, and as you noted, there are cases where some
hierarchisation may remove namespace clutter and allow for
better code reuse.

Cheers,
Dario Teixeira