From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D542BC84 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:28:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j2UFSB1h001268 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:28:11 +0200 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 RAA01795 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:28:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from alex.barettalocal.com (h213-255-109-130.albacom.net [213.255.109.130] (may be forged)) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j2UFSA3C012803 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:28:10 +0200 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alex.barettalocal.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EF7A2BAA3D; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:28:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <424AC58B.2080000@barettadeit.com> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:28:11 +0200 From: Alex Baretta User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050116) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jacques Carette Cc: Ocaml Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Pervasives.compare output type References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 424AC58B.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 424AC58A.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; baretta:01 caml-list:01 pervasives:01 baretta:01 agrees:01 ...:98 ...:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 border:98 jacques:01 constraints:01 purely:02 output:02 theoretical:03 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: Jacques Carette wrote: > Alex Baretta wrote: > >> Xavier Leroy wrote: >> > It's a historical error. [...] >> >> Whether fixing such historical errors engenders more benefits than >> trouble is a very interesting philosophical question. > It all depends on whether the installed base is viewed as more/less > important as the future integrity of the software system as a whole. > When I was in industry, I was in a position where I made the choice that > future integrity was more important... On purely theoretical grounds, I agree with you that working around "historical errors" is generally worse than updating the existing code base. I wonder if Xavier agrees. I also wonder if there are "border constraints" beyond his personal taste on this matter. Alex -- ********************************************************************* http://www.barettadeit.com/ Baretta DE&IT A division of Baretta SRL tel. +39 02 370 111 55 fax. +39 02 370 111 54 Our technology: The Application System/Xcaml (AS/Xcaml) The FreerP Project