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 (11:35)
From: Daniel_Bünzli <daniel.buenzli@e...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Wanted: your feedback on the hierarchy of OCaml Batteries Included

Le 18 nov. 08 à 11:29, Erkki Seppala a écrit :

> For example I prefer using the least amount of opening of modules,  
> to make it easier to see where the values come from

Same here. This is why I'm a little bit sceptical about this hierarchy.

With the current standard library if I suddenly want to use  
Int32.of_int, I know I just need to type Int32.of_int in my source.  
With your proposal I need to remember that it is in Data.Numeric and  
go at the beginning of my file to open it or write  
Data.Numeric.Int32.of_int, to me this brings bureaucracy without any  
benefit. And lack of bureaucracy is one of the reasons I like ocaml  
(and dislike java for example).

Besides Hierarchies are anyway limited in their descriptive power and  
one day you'll find something that will fit in two places, Rope is  
already an example being both Data.Persistent and Data.Text.

Thus my proposal would be to _present_ them as a hierarchy (but even  
here a mean to tag/browse the modules with/by keywords would do a  
better job) but keep the actual module structure of Batteries as flat  
as possible, everything just under the toplevel Batteries. When I code  
I really don't want to have to think about all these open directives  
that essentially bring nothing.