From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62ABC7FE44 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 16:37:33 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:ZT9HPBFqJlCid8t5u0qHH51GYnF86YWxBRYc798ds5kLTJ75r82wAkXT6L1XgUPTWs2DsrQf2rKQ6PirBjFIyK3CmUhKSIZLWR4BhJdetC0bK+nBN3fGKuX3ZTcxBsVIWQwt1Xi6NU9IBJS2PAWK8TWM5DIfUi/yKRBybrysXNWD14Lsj6vtptX6WEZhvHKFe7R8LRG7/036l/I9ps9cEJs30QbDuXBSeu5blitCLFOXmAvgtI/rpMYwuwwZgf8q9tZBXKPmZOx4COUAVHV1e1wyseTvvBjFBSWV52AXUi1Cmx5BAg6D4gv7RZzxmi/3putz2W+ROsigHp4uXjH3w65tSRLsvw2TMSw98SmDhsV2ja9f5hi8qhptx4/8bZuPPeZ/Z77QO9gaEzkSFv1NXjBMV9vvJ7AECPAMaKMB99Hw Authentication-Results: mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; spf=None smtp.pra=daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch; spf=None smtp.mailfrom=daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@smtp.webfaction.com Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch) identity=pra; client-ip=74.55.86.74; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch"; x-sender="daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=74.55.86.74; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch"; x-sender="daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@smtp.webfaction.com) identity=helo; client-ip=74.55.86.74; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch"; x-sender="postmaster@smtp.webfaction.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0A8AAAmun9XhkpWN0pbviSBe4JhgzcCgV8UAQEBAQEBAQERAQEBCAsLCSEvgjKCGwEEASNWBQsLGgImAgJHEAYbiCAIrjmPPQEBCAEBAQEjgQGJc4RBgwErgi8FmRSYDg6FX5AOHoI/EQuBTYofAQEB X-IPAS-Result: A0A8AAAmun9XhkpWN0pbviSBe4JhgzcCgV8UAQEBAQEBAQERAQEBCAsLCSEvgjKCGwEEASNWBQsLGgImAgJHEAYbiCAIrjmPPQEBCAEBAQEjgQGJc4RBgwErgi8FmRSYDg6FX5AOHoI/EQuBTYofAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,330,1464645600"; d="scan'208";a="226096888" Received: from mail6.webfaction.com (HELO smtp.webfaction.com) ([74.55.86.74]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 08 Jul 2016 16:37:32 +0200 Received: from [192.168.199.148] (gw-eduroam.dar.cam.ac.uk [131.111.194.10]) by smtp.webfaction.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BE24210B6D5; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 14:37:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:37:27 +0100 From: =?utf-8?Q?Daniel_B=C3=BCnzli?= To: Alain Frisch Cc: Gabriel Scherer , Damien Doligez , caml users Message-ID: <105BC114A91747C4A583F92DB6AD6BA8@erratique.ch> In-Reply-To: <3004f713-9b54-b221-16c3-f4302abc1a44@lexifi.com> References: <5E818FB5-6908-4E29-838E-C6A2836F60CE@inria.fr> <7BDA5C9D56314AE6A0D9E07226862399@erratique.ch> <3004f713-9b54-b221-16c3-f4302abc1a44@lexifi.com> X-Mailer: sparrow 1.6.4 (build 1178) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [Caml-list] About contributions to the Standard Library [snip] Ok generally agreed that the proposal doesn't feel like a good idea. > Some industrial (or big academic) users being stuck with older=20=20 > versions of OCaml (but many aren't) for good or bad reasons, but the=20=20 > same ones are not likely to require the latest versions of third-party=20= =20 > libraries anyway, so this should not even be an incentive for library=20= =20 > authors to maintain such compatibility. Well bug fixes=E2=80=A6 You can start branching for these users but it is a= maintenance burden. =20=20 > Could you share the reasons for you to target 4.01 (and not, say 3.04) > today? Note, if it were only me I'd only target the smallest version that has ever= ything that I used in the implementation of the package=E2=80=A6 However I have in the past published some libraries using 4.02 only feature= s and I was asked if this could be backported to 4.01 (since it was only ch= anging an open variant into a universal type, I did). In general I now choo= se 4.01 because: 1) I think that supporting at least the current major OCaml release and the= previous one is reasonable both for me and users of my software. (Well 4.0= 3 is out now but adoption seems to have been slow=E2=80=A6 Also if the pace= of major releases accelerates this rule of thumb may have to change). 2) 4.01 has GADTs, fixes for them and a few convenient combinators added to= pervasives. It seems a reasonable version to code in. 3) IIUC it is what is distributed by current debian stable. Note that I'm not sure whether 3) is relevant or not. In my opinion system = package managers should be used to install applications written in OCaml. I= f you want to develop in OCaml you should install OPAM and the OCaml versio= n you end up using is no longer really relevant. Best,=20=20 Daniel