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 CAA17800; Sun, 16 May 2004 02:51:50 +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 CAA17606 for ; Sun, 16 May 2004 02:51:48 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.181]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4G0pjEV025669 for ; Sun, 16 May 2004 02:51:47 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp116-155.lns1.syd2.internode.on.net [150.101.116.155]) by smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4G0pKZq087300; Sun, 16 May 2004 10:21:21 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Counting bits in a big_int From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: yminsky@cs.cornell.edu Cc: Markus Mottl , Jean-Christophe Filliatre , Caml Mailing List In-Reply-To: <891bd339040515131939afd837@mail.gmail.com> References: <891bd3390405112022194630a8@mail.gmail.com> <16547.8441.559944.112854@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <891bd3390405130427180c36d6@mail.gmail.com> <16547.27869.60461.270873@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <891bd3390405141953628db08a@mail.gmail.com> <20040515111433.GA32168@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at> <891bd339040515131939afd837@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1084668678.19838.44.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 16 May 2004 10:51:20 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 40A6BB21.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 sourceforge:01 2004:99 yaron:01 minsky:01 nat:01 undocumented:01 nat:01 undocumented:01 9660:01 glebe:01 ocaml:01 int:01 nsw:01 snail:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Sun, 2004-05-16 at 06:19, Yaron Minsky wrote: > Nice. The weird thing about the Nat module is that it's completely > undocumented. Is there any reason to think it wil be stable between > revisions? Yes, the Ocaml people care about that. > For instance, does Xavier's reimplementation have the same > Num module with the same interface as the previous one? Yes. I've been using Nat for ages and had no problems with upgrades. > I guess my real question is: why is Nat undocumented? Documentation requires work, its fairly easy to guess what Nat does from the function names .. :) -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net ------------------- 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