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 AAA01623; Wed, 1 Sep 2004 00:55:17 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 AAA32617 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2004 00:55:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ptb-relay01.plus.net (ptb-relay01.plus.net [212.159.14.212]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i7VMtF8F021393 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2004 00:55:16 +0200 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=chetara) by ptb-relay01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1C2HX1-000Gbo-Kp for caml-list@inria.fr; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:55:15 +0000 From: Jon Harrop To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Cross-compiling OCaml Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 23:49:35 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <20040901000657.5c6c5fbe.ocaml-erikd@mega-nerd.com> <200408311054.19930.jgoerzen@complete.org> In-Reply-To: <200408311054.19930.jgoerzen@complete.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200408312349.35724.jon@jdh30.plus.com> X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 413501D4.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 2004:99 unfeasible:01 clashes:01 ocamlopt:01 encapsulate:01 mylist:01 unambiguous:01 chop:01 jacques:01 ocaml:01 compile:02 modules:02 modules:02 objects:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Tuesday 31 August 2004 16:54, John Goerzen wrote: > ... > The feeling I got from some at INRIA, though, was that they are not > really interested in expanding the standard library too much for > various reasons. I am under the impression that French Copyright laws make this difficult. IIRC, there was a post by Xavier long ago... Would it be a good idea to have a replacement instead of a supplement? Indeed, is this unfeasible because of name clashes with the core library, i.e. would you need to provide the functionality of the core library and compile ocamlopt against it? I would certainly be interested in contributing to either INRIA's core or an alternative. I'd want to encapsulate things properly though - no good having lots of erratically named modules for the same thing, e.g. List, Listutils, MyList, MyOtherList, and having to remember which function is where. My list of unambiguous missing functions currently stands at: - List.mapi and List.rev_mapi - Chop a list into two sublists at a given index - List.sub (equivalent to Array.sub) - Array.map2, fold_left2, fold_right2, mem, for_all and for_all2 - Random.array (or something) to randomise the order of the elements of an array I think Jacques wrote an OO library which was intended to be used as the basis for derived work, such as this. I'm not sure what the implications of using objects rather than modules are though (e.g. performance). Maybe I should give it a go... Cheers, Jon. ------------------- 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