Re: [Caml-list] Wanted: your feedback on the hierarchy of OCaml Batteries Included

[Dario Teixeira <darioteixeira@yahoo.com>]

Hi,

> I personally prefer the hierarchy but, once again, the majority
> may disagree. So if you believe this is better, the next logical
> step would be to design a full and consistent list of modules
> including all the modules which already appear in the current
> version of Batteries, and with some space left for OCamlnet,
> OCamlnae, Reins, Camomile, ULex, Camlp4, CoThreads and a few
> others. I truly mean it, if you can provide us with something
> you consider more comfortable and as future-proof, we may adopt it.

Paraphrasing Einstein, I think the hierarchy should be as flat
as possible, but no flatter.  For example, I see no reason to
materialise in the hierarchy the separation between persistent
and mutable data structures.  The should be a documentation
issue.  However, and as you noted, there are cases where some
hierarchisation may remove namespace clutter and allow for
better code reuse.

Cheers,
Dario Teixeira