From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id LAA29423; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:04:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id LAA29413 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:04:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA07208 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:31:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from swordfish.cs.caltech.edu (swordfish.cs.caltech.edu [131.215.44.124]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g7CHVTX25453 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:31:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from orchestra.cs.caltech.edu (orchestra.cs.caltech.edu [131.215.44.20]) by swordfish.cs.caltech.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B388DF272; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:31:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from mvanier@localhost) by orchestra.cs.caltech.edu (8.11.6/8.9.3) id g7CHVRD14574; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:31:27 -0700 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:31:27 -0700 Message-Id: <200208121731.g7CHVRD14574@orchestra.cs.caltech.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: orchestra.cs.caltech.edu: mvanier set sender to mvanier@cs.caltech.edu using -f From: Michael Vanier To: yrashk@openeas.org Cc: caml-list@inria.fr In-reply-to: <02081217191500.26326@rashko.ilt.kharkov.ua> (yrashk@openeas.org) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Namespace proposal References: <02081217191500.26326@rashko.ilt.kharkov.ua> Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk The namespace proposal brings up a related issue. Is there any interest in having a more formal process for making requests for enhancements to the ocaml language analogous to (e.g.) the Python Enhancement Proposals (PEPs) for python (http://www.python.org/peps) or similar processes for perl, ruby, and java? I can see advantages and disadvantages to this approach. The advantage is that there is an organized record of proposals, commentary on proposals, etc. The disadvantage is that I suspect that a lot of feature requests might be unimplementable or require a huge amount of research to see if they're implementable (e.g. generically overloaded operators), as opposed to PEPs, which are generally fairly trivial. What do people think? Ocaml forever, Mike ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners