From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id DAA05764; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 03:25:46 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA05618 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 03:25:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from relay.pair.com (relay.pair.com [209.68.1.20]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id h2V1PfX14274 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 03:25:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (qmail 85578 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2003 01:25:36 -0000 Received: from arda.pair.com (HELO compaqreview.d6.com) (209.68.1.133) by relay.pair.com with SMTP; 31 Mar 2003 01:25:36 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 209.68.1.133 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030330171713.046f75b8@localhost> X-Sender: checker@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 17:21:01 -0800 To: Damien Doligez , caml-list@inria.fr From: Chris Hecker Subject: Re: [Caml-list] camlimages vs. labltk In-Reply-To: <45905683-6297-11D7-B6B4-0003930FCE12@inria.fr> References: <20030328150028.GA9211@iliana> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam: no; 0.00; hecker:01 checker:01 caml-list:01 camlimages:01 labltk:01 -pack:01 submodules:01 abv:99 chris:01 cmo:01 syntax:02 cma:03 library:03 referencing:03 namespace:04 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk >How do you make sure that two different libraries never use the same >namespace ? And if I need to use two versions of the same library >in my program, how do you make sure that two versions of the same >library never use the same namespace ? Are you saying because they cross reference each other, or because they are the same name? If -pack was changed to work in the way we've been talking about (basically, the submodules are in a cma not cmo), then the user of the libraries could just pack them in different outer names, no? In other words, -pack would be able to be used as a namespace renamer, or as a library packer, etc., but it has the advantage of being a single solution as opposed to having a namespace and a pack syntax/semantic. If you've got cross referencing, say A uses B version 1 and you want to use B version 2, then you pack A and Bv1 into a single ABv1 library, and you use B and it should "just work". Assuming it's not impossible to make -pack work this way (not forcing link of all submodules), it seems better to have a single solution as opposed to multiple. Unless I'm missing something? Chris ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners