From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jon@ffconsultancy.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled 
	version=3.1.3
X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 460B0BBAF
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Wed,  9 Sep 2009 11:07:37 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjMBABQNp0rUnwdkjWdsb2JhbACCIpkfAQEBAQkJCgkRBsEJhBgFgVQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,357,1249250400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="33942962"
Received: from relay.pcl-ipout02.plus.net ([212.159.7.100])
  by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 09 Sep 2009 11:07:36 +0200
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AokFABQNp0rUnw4S/2dsb2JhbACCItpohBgFgVQ
Received: from pih-relay05.plus.net ([212.159.14.18])
  by relay.pcl-ipout02.plus.net with ESMTP; 09 Sep 2009 10:07:36 +0100
Received: from [87.114.1.46] (helo=leper.local)
	 by pih-relay05.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1MlJ9L-0006Tl-Mu
	for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:07:35 +0100
From: Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com>
Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] probability of some events
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:18:40 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9
References: <4AA73950.9000901@gulfsat.mg> <002b01ca3122$b7061a40$25124ec0$@metastack.com>
In-Reply-To: <002b01ca3122$b7061a40$25124ec0$@metastack.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200909091118.40664.jon@ffconsultancy.com>
X-Plusnet-Relay: 114672797f6797104bdd07c7ff9869fe
X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 camlp:01 camlp:01 ocaml:01 2009:98 frog:98 equality:01 wrote:01 incompatible:01 caml-list:01 minor:01 probability:01 separately:05 unlikely:06 inria:06 

On Wednesday 09 September 2009 08:54:08 David Allsopp wrote:
> > > Are you aware of such future changes in OCaml, that would lead to
> > > incompatibility?
>
> With the usual caveat that past performance is not an indicator of future
> wealth...
>
> In the last few years, the only change which caused a bit of an uproar was
> camlp4 between 3.09 and 3.10 (which was totally incompatible but had the
> same command name). This has all since resolved itself (camlp5 maintained
> separately for developers who want the old mechanism and the new camlp4 now
> in general use) but I think it's reasonable to say that the response to it
> at the time means that it's unlikely that such a breaking change would be
> introduced within the 3.x branch of OCaml in the future, but of course I
> too don't speak for the guys at Inria. It seemed obvious from the list
> posts at the time that 3.10.0 was adopted more slowly than normal minor
> version-number releases because of the breaking change in camlp4.

Equality was also changed and caused some problems but I agree that very few 
breaking changes have been made to OCaml in the recent past.

-- 
Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e