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 mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74C7BBBAF for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:38:09 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvgCAFClI0lDz4HegWdsb2JhbACTVwEBFiK+aoJ5 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,631,1220220000"; d="scan'208";a="17368116" Received: from fettunta.fettunta.org ([67.207.129.222]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 19 Nov 2008 14:38:08 +0100 Received: from usha.takhisis.invalid (unknown [10.17.0.18]) by fettunta.fettunta.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D3D418210 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:38:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by usha.takhisis.invalid (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 270466875; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:38:05 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:38:05 +0100 From: Stefano Zacchiroli To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Wanted: your feedback on the hierarchy of OCaml Batteries Included Message-ID: <20081119133805.GC1646@usha.takhisis.invalid> References: <1227002178.6170.25.camel@Blefuscu> <20081118100625.GA25627@annexia.org> <421532A1-E2CA-404F-8387-E11DA9B3DE79@erratique.ch> <1227010539.6170.72.camel@Blefuscu> <20081118123231.GA15110@annexia.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20081118123231.GA15110@annexia.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Spam: no; 0.00; zacchiroli:01 zack:01 ocaml:01 0100,:01 zacchiroli:01 postdoc:01 zack:01 churn:98 dietro:98 c'e:98 sempre:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 uno:98 pps:01 On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:32:31PM +0000, Richard Jones wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 01:15:39PM +0100, David Teller wrote: > > Do you see any better way of managing the complexity of all this? > > I'm still not getting where the benefit of having this hierarchy is, > except that it adds a Java-like complexity and will create > hard-to-manage churn if a module ever moves. Regarding the advantages see my previous post, where I put some motivations. Regarding the difficulties of moving modules around, how harder is than moving a module around when you have no hierarchy? -- Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7 zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime