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=3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS,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 40FDCBBAF for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:32:00 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuQDAJ9SIklDww/Nd2dsb2JhbACOPYUcAQwKCQkRsSCMdgUCAYJ2 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,625,1220220000"; d="scan'208";a="17323315" Received: from web111513.mail.gq1.yahoo.com ([67.195.15.205]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with SMTP; 18 Nov 2008 14:31:59 +0100 Received: (qmail 79078 invoked by uid 60001); 18 Nov 2008 13:31:57 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=GVjbpkwTJTt6bWAngMQQh4lMBqDvXzFaVKw1TjcF9ljMMIBoT5yZ2hlHIjqWF/TAM6mhx8hunAVx95IFU0PEM5kLQxQrZ9pKL+tkho85suTSgspDoQ5+4kezNaYxZJyNFg+ShUUeDGmyvatQ+MG7uSylPrhEVMFyLZW37bQ9DFA=; X-YMail-OSG: bsvV7YsVM1nGRtPvbXdACploUeEU8_PcwDADtpfGSQQ45_GwFxpriO3K7ER74ovbWnRKXBz3UQcRoLvmIsge2riIUiNVIXCVs6LnA5iRTNmRi6kXplLYRlPvR4YJHoCFob5wsQFAe6Em6DgoADjLCjyqPGOlPiM1u3aa7cYT Received: from [213.205.70.195] by web111513.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 05:31:57 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.260.1 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 05:31:57 -0800 (PST) From: Dario Teixeira Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Wanted: your feedback on the hierarchy of OCaml Batteries Included To: OCaml List In-Reply-To: <1227012000.6170.94.camel@Blefuscu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <218682.78372.qm@web111513.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocamlnet:01 camomile:01 camlp:01 mutable:01 cheers:01 einstein:98 caml-list:01 reuse:01 data:02 modules:02 modules:02 structures:02 consistent:02 hierarchy:03 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 =0A=0A=0A