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: | 2008-11-20 (12:59) |
From: | Nicolas Pouillard <nicolas.pouillard@g...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Wanted: your feedback on the hierarchy of OCaml Batteries Included |
Excerpts from Richard Jones's message of Thu Nov 20 11:33:03 +0100 2008: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:28:07AM +0100, Nicolas Pouillard wrote: > > No one (I guess) would recommend you to use fully qualified paths as in > > Data.Containers.List.length of course. Data.Containers.List.length is the > > external name, made to be well organized not to be quick to type, the way > > to use it to open it *OR* to define an internal name for it : > > > > module L = Data.Containers.List > > > > And then use L.length, L.map... > > I've lost the plot on what problem are we trying to solve .. except > for the original one which is "Windows users are too stupid to use a > packaging system, so let's give them everything in a single > installer". But surely having everyone using privately named modules > is a bad idea? The private names chosen won't be consistent, and they > require a reference back to the top of the code to find out which > module they are really using. Encouraging developers to open modules > is also usually a bad idea, except in very limited circumstances > (hello Printf). Actually having to look at the top of each file (and only the top), is my favorite option. That's in fact exactly what I already do. -- Nicolas Pouillard aka Ertai