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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_SECURITYSAGE autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C815BBAF for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:17:28 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvgCAPoyIknAXQIngWdsb2JhbACTWAEBFiK9d4J5 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,624,1220220000"; d="scan'208";a="31557748" Received: from concorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.39]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 18 Nov 2008 12:17:27 +0100 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id mAIBHOCY002207 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:17:27 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmoBADczIknCpx6vmWdsb2JhbACTWAEBAQEBCAsKBxG9fIJ5 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,624,1220220000"; d="scan'208";a="19286726" Received: from smtpka.univ-orleans.fr (HELO ka.univ-orleans.fr) ([194.167.30.175]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 18 Nov 2008 12:17:27 +0100 Received: from smtps.univ-orleans.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ka.univ-orleans.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F9412AD54; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:17:26 +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 16AA036E60; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:17:28 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Wanted: your feedback on the hierarchy of OCaml Batteries Included From: David Teller To: Richard Jones Cc: OCaml In-Reply-To: <20081118100625.GA25627@annexia.org> References: <1227002178.6170.25.camel@Blefuscu> <20081118100625.GA25627@annexia.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:17:28 +0100 Message-Id: <1227007048.6170.35.camel@Blefuscu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4922A444.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 univ-orleans:01 cheers:01 univ-orleans:01 lifo:01 liquidations:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 data:02 modules:02 underscore:02 underscore:02 external:03 external:03 module:03 This raises two questions: 1) how important is it to allow third-party modules to extend the namespace? 2) how important is it to offer a uniform package structure (where levels are always separated by '.' rather than some level by '.' and some by '_')? For the moment, we have considered point 1 not very important and point 2 a little more. There are several reasons to disregard point 1. Among these, clarity of origin (as in "is this module endorsed by Batteries or not?") and documentation issues (as in "gosh, this module pretends to be part of [Data] but I can't find the documentation anywhere in the documentation of Batteries, wtf?"). Do you believe that we should have chosen otherwise? Cheers, David On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 10:06 +0000, Richard Jones wrote: > Your biggest problem is using dot ('.') instead of underscore ('_'). > Using a dot means that the System namespace cannot be extended by > external packages. If you use an underscore then an external package > can extend the namespace (eg. by providing System_Newpackage) > > Rich. > -- David Teller-Rajchenbach 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.