From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC466BBAF for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 09:54:30 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiUBAG/8pkpRZ90wkWdsb2JhbACbQQEBAQEJCwoHEwPBQIQYBYFU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,357,1249250400"; d="scan'208";a="32438811" Received: from mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.48]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 09 Sep 2009 09:54:30 +0200 Received: from aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vM.7.08.04.00 201-2186-134-20080326) with ESMTP id <20090909075430.KUPN6611.mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com>; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 08:54:30 +0100 Received: from romulus.metastack.com ([81.102.132.77]) by aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vG.2.02.00.01 201-2161-120-102-20060912) with ESMTP id <20090909075429.OLXO22934.aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@romulus.metastack.com>; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 08:54:29 +0100 Received: from Tenor ([172.16.0.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by romulus.metastack.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n897sQ0O001530 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 9 Sep 2009 08:54:27 +0100 From: "David Allsopp" To: "'Rakotomandimby Mihamina'" , References: <4AA73950.9000901@gulfsat.mg> In-Reply-To: <4AA73950.9000901@gulfsat.mg> Subject: RE: [Caml-list] probability of some events Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 08:54:08 +0100 Message-ID: <002b01ca3122$b7061a40$25124ec0$@metastack.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcoxDDh0chMUNZNyQ3CaNTg5ZyM1zQAFE0xw Content-Language: en-gb Organization: MetaStack Solutions Ltd. X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.65 on 81.102.132.77 X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=hdJocTYDfXMA:10 a=Ersddnu4c7Sdw8rx09IA:9 a=kzRxJrI4_cJIKqq01CkA:7 a=AQVEDPoLUgfn82HqsdmUFRp7rxwA:4 X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 camlp:01 camlp:01 ocaml:01 trivial:01 stdlib:01 ,...:98 compilers:01 incompatible:01 caml-list:01 minor:01 probability:01 caml:02 caml:02 objective:02 > > 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. Further history (looking only at Changes in the sources: I started using OCaml at version 3.06, I think) suggests that breaking changes between major versions have either been detectable and trivial to fix or aided with translation tools. For example, stdlib function names had to change between Caml Special Light 1.15 and Objective Caml 1.00 or new keywords between OCaml 1.07 and 2.00 and between OCaml 2.04 and 3.00, there appears to have been much concern for backwards compatibility with tools provided to help the transition from various different previous versions of the merged compilers. As for what gems OCaml 4.x may or may not feature, you'd have to bribe the priests at Inria for details of their dreams and wishes ;o) > We intend to begin huge developments in OCaml (Web, GUI, system,...) > and such changes will make our task a bit more difficult. Your (valid) worry about future incompatibilities definitely shouldn't put you off this! It's also painless to run multiple versions of OCaml side-by-side (at least if building from sources). HTH, David