Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

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: 2008-11-18 (11:17)
From: David Teller <David.Teller@u...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Wanted: your feedback on the hierarchy of OCaml Batteries Included
This raises two questions: 
1) how important is it to allow third-party modules to extend the
2) how important is it to offer a uniform package structure (where
levels are always separated by '.' rather than some level by '.' and
some by '_')?

For the moment, we have considered point 1 not very important and point
2 a little more. There are several reasons to disregard point 1. Among
these, clarity of origin (as in "is this module endorsed by Batteries or
not?") and documentation issues (as in "gosh, this module pretends to be
part of [Data] but I can't find the documentation anywhere in the
documentation of Batteries, wtf?").

Do you believe that we should have chosen otherwise?


On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 10:06 +0000, Richard Jones wrote:
> Your biggest problem is using dot ('.') instead of underscore ('_').
> Using a dot means that the System namespace cannot be extended by
> external packages.  If you use an underscore then an external package
> can extend the namespace (eg. by providing System_Newpackage)
> Rich.
David Teller-Rajchenbach
 Security of Distributed Systems
 Angry researcher: French Universities need reforms, but the LRU act brings liquidations.