Re: additions to standard library?

From: Pierre Weis (Pierre.Weis@inria.fr)
Date: Tue Mar 14 2000 - 18:53:41 MET

  • Next message: Don Syme: "RE: Syntax for label"

    > It is also not my intention to get over-featured libraries. I was just
    > wondering which would be the best way to propose reasonable additions
    > and/or contribute code. I am not out for a specific way to do this - I just
    > would like to know which way would be most appropriate for INRIA. It would
    > be disappointing for both sides if unwise decisions in this respect lead to
    > something like "diverging development".
    >
    > At the moment I have the feeling that some modules are indeed rather
    > under-featured. One can really not say that e.g. the "Char"-module boasts
    > with rich features, and some others (like the mentioned Set-module) would
    > also not suffer if functions like "partition" or "for_all", etc., are
    > added, especially considering the fact that these "settish" functions even
    > exist in the List-module.

    You're right: for the time being our libraries are in some sense
    minimalist (due to the ancient times problems with memory capacities
    of micro computers and 1.4 Mb floppies). It may be time now to get
    reasonably featured libraries. For instance, you mentioned few
    functions that sound adequate to be added (in the first place because
    there are not a zillion of them).

    > > On the other hand, I don't think it would be a bad thing if more
    > > people contributed to the development of O'Caml.
    >
    > Definitely! Though, there should be some standard way to contribute so that
    > people don't step on each other's toes. Naturally, the opinion of the main
    > developers should set the direction...
    >
    > > Anyway, you can always set up a repository on Sourceforge or any
    > > similar site and see what happens. :-)
    >
    > I have thought about this, but I am not sure whether this provokes what you
    > mentioned: that the "regular" and the "extended" library diverge. On the
    > other hand, it seems that Sourceforge really provides for great features
    > for free software projects (CVS-repository, mailing lists, bug tracking,
    > patch manager, etc...), which would reduce at least the administrative
    > effort on INRIA's side...

    We also have the tools you mentioned to develop the Caml compiler
    (``CVS-repository, mailing lists, bug tracking, patch manager,
    etc...''), except may be ``etc...'':), so that there is no need to set
    up another site to develop the Caml standard library (on the other
    hand the use of SourceForge may be very relevant for other
    cooperative developments out of the Caml compiler). In any means we
    must avoid confusion and divergence with 2 different standard libraries.

    Caml users may contribute to the wish list associated to the caml bugs
    tracking system: you may contribute in a useful way if you also
    provide the code associated to your wishes.

    Best regards,

    -- 
    Pierre Weis
    

    INRIA, Projet Cristal, http://pauillac.inria.fr/~weis



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 14 2000 - 19:26:30 MET