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 mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 600BBBC6C for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:58:00 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAL4IqEfBMVMQk2dsb2JhbACQLAEBAQEHBAYJIJ0C X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,308,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="8786595" Received: from minbis.univ-orleans.fr (HELO min.univ-orleans.fr) ([193.49.83.16]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 05 Feb 2008 15:57:43 +0100 Received: from smtps.univ-orleans.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by min.univ-orleans.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A6E912B3C7; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:57:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.0.12] (ras75-4-82-235-58-110.fbx.proxad.net [82.235.58.110]) by smtps.univ-orleans.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 441DE36E5B; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:57:43 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [OSR] Suggested topic - XML processing API From: David Teller To: Jon Harrop Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <200802051329.01907.jon@ffconsultancy.com> References: <42E82E2A-5A21-426A-9D3F-E4BBE32F0EEC@erratique.ch> <1202207990-sup-8670@port-ext6.ensta.fr> <200802051329.01907.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:57:41 +0100 Message-Id: <1202223461.6226.88.camel@Blefuscu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam: no; 0.00; univ-orleans:01 cheers:01 variants:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 univ-orleans:01 lifo:01 liquidations:98 polymorphic:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 pervasive:01 int:01 modules:02 We can do that. It's only a few days' work, after all. But it's another day's work for the OSR :) Cheers, David On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 13:29 +0000, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Tuesday 05 February 2008 10:43:51 Nicolas Pouillard wrote: > > However I think that for error handling option and either are > > simpler solutions. Then going to polymorphic variants because OCaml > > don't have "either" in pervasive is sad (in fact I think that OCaml > > deserve a "either" type, even more: an "Either" module). > > ... and an "Option" module for the "option" type. And "Int" and "Float" > modules ... > -- David Teller Security of Distributed Systems http://www.univ-orleans.fr/lifo/Members/David.Teller Angry researcher: French Universities need reforms, but the LRU act brings liquidations.