English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

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: 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