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 XAA26137; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:29:39 +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 XAA26583 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:29:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.203]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i6ELTZEV002098 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:29:36 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp216-145.lns1.syd3.internode.on.net [203.122.216.145]) by smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i6ELTSHY050925; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 06:59:29 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: int hash From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: Richard Jones Cc: caml-list In-Reply-To: <20040714144651.GA26850@redhat.com> References: <1089797635.29648.472.camel@pelican.wigram> <1089815270.29648.521.camel@pelican.wigram> <20040714144651.GA26850@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1089840567.29648.533.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 15 Jul 2004 07:29:27 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 40F5A5BF.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 hash:01 sourceforge:01 2004:99 2004:99 dynarray:01 lgpl'd:01 lightly:01 extlib:01 extlib:01 pcre:01 fragile:01 cygwin:01 mingw:01 9660:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 00:46, Richard Jones wrote: > On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 12:27:50AM +1000, skaller wrote: > > For some things .. not necessarily this one .. DynArray > > would be great .. but it creates a dependence on an > > unstable third party LGPL'd library. I can neither > > lift the relevant code (due to the licence), > > nor lightly require my clients install that library > > just to build my product. [I have seriously considered > > requiring ExtLib] > > I almost consider ExtLib to be part of "standard OCaml", along with > PCRE. It's easier just to have both installed whenever I set up a new > machine with OCaml, than to have to worry about writing the extra code > to simulate functionality already in ExtLib. > That is reasonable for an Ocaml developer (which I am), but not as clearly reasonable for a *client* of my code who is probably not. I feel the need to supply a system consisting of the smallest number of separately installable components for obvious reasons: every dependence on a third party component makes my package fragile. For example, I'd like it to install on Win32 native.. I don't have control of third party packages so how do i respond when a client has a problem? Note the problem *isn't* the quality of the third party code! Its sure to be better than mine :) I have a client that installs my package on 5 different platforms (his product is a multi-platform game, it runs on OSX, Linux[both PC and XBox], OS9, Cygwin and Mingw at present). This problem may be substantially corrected by GODI because it provides a *unified* installation system. -- 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