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 mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 817C9BBB7 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:51:35 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvgCAEJJIknAXQIngWdsb2JhbACTWQEBFiK+KYJ5 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,625,1220220000"; d="scan'208";a="20079944" Received: from concorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.39]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 18 Nov 2008 13:51:35 +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 mAICpWOJ004321 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:51:35 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmoBAIlJIknCpx6wmWdsb2JhbACTWQEBAQEBCAsKBxG+KoJ5 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,625,1220220000"; d="scan'208";a="19290213" Received: from smtpmin.univ-orleans.fr (HELO min.univ-orleans.fr) ([194.167.30.176]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 18 Nov 2008 13:51:25 +0100 Received: from smtps.univ-orleans.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by min.univ-orleans.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CEA212B4DD; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:51:25 +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 64C9536E60; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:51:26 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Wanted: your feedback on the hierarchy of OCaml Batteries Included From: David Teller To: Benedikt Grundmann Cc: OCaml In-Reply-To: <9b415f950811180428x2de94a64q6fa92887f8e00705@mail.gmail.com> References: <1227002178.6170.25.camel@Blefuscu> <20081118100625.GA25627@annexia.org> <421532A1-E2CA-404F-8387-E11DA9B3DE79@erratique.ch> <1227010539.6170.72.camel@Blefuscu> <9b415f950811180428x2de94a64q6fa92887f8e00705@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:51:27 +0100 Message-Id: <1227012687.6170.107.camel@Blefuscu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4922BA54.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 univ-orleans:01 grundmann:01 ocaml:01 node:01 cheers:01 univ-orleans:01 lifo:01 liquidations:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 functions:01 exceptions:01 suffix:02 labels:03 Ok, that's an interesting point. Now, we just need to all agree on one standard :) On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 12:28 +0000, Benedikt Grundmann wrote: > > Do you see any better way of managing the complexity of all this? > Yes don't introduce it at all, make a decision to use or not use labels > and stick with it. Similarly make a decision to use or not use exceptions > as the "default", suffix / rename alternative functions as appropriate > (consistently). Consistency is a big win. Not only as it speeds you up > when you read/modify other people's code it also reduces the amount > of decisions you have to do when writing new code. > > http://ocaml.janestreet.com/?q=node/28 > > Cheers, > > Bene > -- 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.