From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id UAA11964; Fri, 21 May 2004 20:29:12 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA12481 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 20:29:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from postfix4-2.free.fr (postfix4-2.free.fr [213.228.0.176]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4LIT9EV012026 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 20:29:09 +0200 Received: from warp (chateaudeau-4-82-225-176-25.fbx.proxad.net [82.225.176.25]) by postfix4-2.free.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 47749110A7F; Fri, 21 May 2004 20:29:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <008601c43f61$48782ef0$19b0e152@warp> From: "Nicolas Cannasse" To: "Alain Frisch" , "Caml list" References: Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Proposal for separate compilation Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 20:27:30 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 40AE4A75.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; cannasse:01 warplayer:01 caml-list:01 jacques:01 additionnal:01 corrects:01 versionning:01 cannasse:01 ocaml:01 nicolas:01 nicolas:01 linking:02 module:03 differs:03 cma:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > Hello list, > > I'd like to get feedback on a suggestion to modify the way OCaml > handle separate compilation. I already mentioned that proposal to > Xavier and Jacques. [...] > What do people think about the proposal ? To put it simple, and if I understood correctly : Right now the linking lookup is done on a name basis, with an additionnal MD5 check. Your proposal is to make a lookup on a (Name+MD5) basis. This way you can have overlapping names that differs only by MD5. That looks simple and nice, since it corrects two problems at once : - module name overlapping - versionning : having several versions on the library installed or packaged into the same CMA would be ok this way ! Where can I vote for ? :) Regards, Nicolas Cannasse ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners