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 mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F458BBAF for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:29:53 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmoBACM3I0nCpx6wmWdsb2JhbACTWAEBAQEBCAsKBxG+IIJ5 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,629,1220220000"; d="scan'208";a="31588168" Received: from unknown (HELO min.univ-orleans.fr) ([194.167.30.176]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 19 Nov 2008 07:29:52 +0100 Received: from smtps.univ-orleans.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by min.univ-orleans.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2B2312B4DF; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:29:49 +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 E297D36E60; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:29:49 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Wanted: your feedback on the hierarchy of OCaml Batteries Included From: David Teller To: Jon Harrop Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <200811182330.03947.jon@ffconsultancy.com> References: <1227002178.6170.25.camel@Blefuscu> <200811182330.03947.jon@ffconsultancy.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:29:52 +0100 Message-Id: <1227076192.6290.7.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 ocaml:01 printf:01 printf:01 cheers:01 univ-orleans:01 lifo:01 striking:98 liquidations:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 modules:02 modules:02 On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 23:30 +0000, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Tuesday 18 November 2008 09:56:18 David Teller wrote: > I only have one major concern: you say "with the large number of modules > involved, we would need a hierarchy of modules" but the number of modules > involved is tiny (a few dozen in OCaml compared to tens or even hundreds of > thousands in any industrial-strength language) because OCaml has very few > libraries. Yet your module hierarchies are already enormous and often require > a longer sequence of modules to reach simple functionality than is required > in a comparatively-huge library like .NET. Well, we're trying to be future-proof. Don't you think we should? > To me, the most striking example is printf which is just printf in F#, > Printf.printf in OCaml and is now Text.Printf.printf in OCaml+Batteries. > Surely this is a step in the wrong direction? Well, if you it's just the matter of [printf], we can add it to [Batteries.Standard] to import it in the standard namespace. The biggest question is how many things we want imported in that standard namespace. Or you could start your files with [open Text.Printf] or [module P = Text.Printf] or any similar combination. Oh, and, [Printf.printf] works, too. This is one of the modules which have a shortcut to their path in the hierarchy, to mirror the base library. Cheers, 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.