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=1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_SECURITYSAGE, SPF_FAIL 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 8D927BBAF for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:37:54 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvgCAIvdI0lQRFuwgWdsb2JhbACTVwEBFiK/WYJ5 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,633,1220220000"; d="scan'208";a="17378974" Received: from furbychan.cocan.org ([80.68.91.176]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 19 Nov 2008 18:37:54 +0100 Received: from rich by furbychan.cocan.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1L2qzv-0002rN-W3; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:37:52 +0000 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:37:51 +0000 To: Stefano Zacchiroli Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Wanted: your feedback on the hierarchy of OCaml Batteries Included Message-ID: <20081119173751.GA10376@annexia.org> 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> <20081119133805.GC1646@usha.takhisis.invalid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081119133805.GC1646@usha.takhisis.invalid> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: Richard Jones X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 0100,:01 zacchiroli:01 0100,:01 churn:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 modules:02 modules:02 module:03 module:03 hierarchy:03 hierarchy:03 guess:04 On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 02:38:05PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > 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? Well I guess what I _meant_ to say was that if your modules aren't in a hierarchy to start with, then you won't be tempted to move them around the hierarchy :-) Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat