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 DAA02537; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:45:31 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA01843 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:45:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp [130.54.16.1]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3Q1jRjq020032 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 03:45:28 +0200 Received: from localhost (suiren.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp [130.54.16.25]) by kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (8.9.3p2-20030924/3.7W) with ESMTP id KAA05266; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:45:21 +0900 (JST) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:45:21 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20040426.104521.68535941.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> To: ben@socialtools.net Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: [Caml-list] Re: Proposal: community standard library project From: Jacques GARRIGUE In-Reply-To: <408A64CB.40500@socialtools.net> References: <20040423211628.GE6783@excelhustler.com> <20040423222829.GH848@speakeasy.org> <408A64CB.40500@socialtools.net> X-Mailer: Mew version 4.0.64 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at = by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; jacques:01 library':01 incompatible:01 api:01 interfacing:01 reviews:99 jacques:01 unicode:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 garrigue:01 garrigue:01 modules:02 objects:02 clearer:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk From: Benjamin Geer > I'm envisaging a new 'community standard library' project which would > supplement (and perhaps partly replace) INRIA's standard library, and in > which: > > * Libraries would be categorised according to function, e.g. > data structures, Unicode, I/O, network protocols, etc. > > * No duplicate or incompatible functionality would be allowed > in each functional area. People would have to cooperate > to make their stuff work together. > > * Minimum standards of portability, documentation, etc. would be > checked. > > * Everything would be released via GODI. Writing down this makes clearer part of the problem with ocaml and/or its community: your second point would be very hard to satisfy. Why? Because ocaml gives you many ways to define an API for any functionality. And does not try to decide which is better. So you can only end up with duplicate libraries, according to personal tastes. Not only there are plenty of duplicate libraries around, but I'm sure that many ocaml programmers prefer to create their own private library rather than using some available one. You can be functional or imperative, use optional arguments or not, use objects or modules, etc... Even interfacing a C library can be done in many different ways... This does not mean that people should not cooperate, just that you cannot force them to. The 1st point is reasonable. This is already what the humps are doing, but a system allowing requests for new functionalities would be nice too. The 3rd point, I would rather see it as having more meta-documentation, ie information on libraries without having to download and install: requirements, extensiveness, quality of the documentation, user reviews... The last point is clear enough. Jacques Garrigue ------------------- 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