On Wednesday 09 September 2009 08:54:08 David Allsopp wrote:
> > > Are you aware of such future changes in OCaml, that would lead to
> > > incompatibility?
>
> With the usual caveat that past performance is not an indicator of future
> wealth...
>
> In the last few years, the only change which caused a bit of an uproar was
> camlp4 between 3.09 and 3.10 (which was totally incompatible but had the
> same command name). This has all since resolved itself (camlp5 maintained
> separately for developers who want the old mechanism and the new camlp4 now
> in general use) but I think it's reasonable to say that the response to it
> at the time means that it's unlikely that such a breaking change would be
> introduced within the 3.x branch of OCaml in the future, but of course I
> too don't speak for the guys at Inria. It seemed obvious from the list
> posts at the time that 3.10.0 was adopted more slowly than normal minor
> version-number releases because of the breaking change in camlp4.

Equality was also changed and caused some problems but I agree that very few 
breaking changes have been made to OCaml in the recent past.

-- 
Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e