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 concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52025BC6C; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 01:49:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.140]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l75Nmo3n023845; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 01:48:52 +0200 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.19,223,1183300200"; d="scan'208";a="167490861" Received: from ppp121-44-98-105.lns10.syd6.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.201]) ([121.44.98.105]) by ipmail01.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 06 Aug 2007 09:17:24 +0930 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Sorted list From: skaller To: Xavier Leroy Cc: Brian Hurt , tmp123@menta.net, ocaml ml In-Reply-To: <46B5FA25.7090001@inria.fr> References: <46B4485B.7040406@menta.net> <46B454ED.700@philippewang.info> <1186226538.14440.105.camel@rosella.wigram> <46B48F3C.1040904@menta.net> <1186242141.11801.10.camel@rosella.wigram> <46B5FA25.7090001@inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 09:47:23 +1000 Message-Id: <1186357643.6523.76.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 46B661E2.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; 0200,:01 modestly:01 ocaml:01 admittedly:01 distro:01 distro:01 courtyard:98 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 functions:01 modules:02 algorithms:03 library:03 let:03 On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 18:26 +0200, Xavier Leroy wrote: > In reply to Brian Hurt's comment: > In reply to John Skaller's request: > > > Well, I would like to see a community process for selecting, > > implementing, documenting and maintaining a set of good algorithms > > Why not. Care to start such a process yourself? Or more modestly > joining one of the existing efforts for building additional OCaml > libraries, like Extlib? I am actually an extlib developer :) > No way. Neither you nor us want to deal with our (admittedly slow) > release cycle, with copyright assignments, etc. Moreover, we > definitely do not have the time and manpower to build such an > infrastructure, decide between conflicting proposals, etc. If a > community is willing to make such an effort, it will have to > self-organize. The community can self-organise, but that won't get extra components in the standard distro. In the case of adding functions to existing modules, a separate distribution isn't even possible. Extlib tried both these things already. It may be a good or bad library, but it failed in its goals; none of it has got into the standard distro, not even the ideas. > Bazaars are not run by priests. No, but the priests let the people use their courtyard to run them, happily accept contributions, and provide blessings occasionally :) -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net