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=1.2 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 524BDBBAF for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:23:33 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmoBAFleIknCpx6wmWdsb2JhbACTWQEBAQEBCAsKBxG+PoJ5 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,625,1220220000"; d="scan'208";a="20084578" Received: from smtpmin.univ-orleans.fr (HELO min.univ-orleans.fr) ([194.167.30.176]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 18 Nov 2008 15:23:33 +0100 Received: from smtps.univ-orleans.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by min.univ-orleans.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6683E12B4F1; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:23:31 +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 07FA936E61; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:23:31 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Wanted: your feedback on the hierarchy of OCaml Batteries Included From: David Teller To: Dario Teixeira Cc: OCaml List In-Reply-To: <218682.78372.qm@web111513.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <218682.78372.qm@web111513.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:23:33 +0100 Message-Id: <1227018213.6170.122.camel@Blefuscu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 univ-orleans:01 mutable:01 mutable:01 flatten:01 univ-orleans:01 lifo:01 einstein:98 liquidations:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 reuse:01 data:02 data:02 structures:02 On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 05:31 -0800, Dario Teixeira wrote: > Paraphrasing Einstein, I think the hierarchy should be as flat > as possible, but no flatter. For example, I see no reason to > materialise in the hierarchy the separation between persistent > and mutable data structures. The should be a documentation > issue. However, and as you noted, there are cases where some > hierarchisation may remove namespace clutter and allow for > better code reuse. Duly noted. As you may see on our candidate replacement hierarchy, we intend to merge Data.Persistent and Data.Mutable into Data.Containers. Whether we flatten further remains open to debate. Thanks, David -- 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.