From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5144BBBB; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 14:57:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from grassmarket.ucs.ed.ac.uk (grassmarket.ucs.ed.ac.uk [129.215.166.64]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k22DvsiD022706; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 14:57:54 +0100 Received: from [129.215.46.138] (kirkland.inf.ed.ac.uk [129.215.46.138]) by grassmarket.ucs.ed.ac.uk (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k22Dvr3S008272; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 13:57:53 GMT Message-ID: <4406F9E1.6010801@sms.ed.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 13:57:53 +0000 From: Ezra Cooper User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2-1.3.2.ed.1 (X11/20050420) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Damien Doligez Cc: caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Map.fold behavior changed References: <20060224160115.56522.qmail@web50408.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Edinburgh-Scanned: at grassmarket.ucs.ed.ac.uk with MIMEDefang 2.33, Sophie, Sophos Anti-Virus X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.33 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 4406F9E2.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 damien:01 discrepancy:01 bug:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 doligez:01 incompatible:01 string:02 sms:97 sys:03 sys:03 numerical:03 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 Damien Doligez wrote: > > On Feb 24, 2006, at 17:01, Joaquin Cuenca Abela wrote: > >> Expecting the documentation to be beyond flaws or >> making it right "by definition" also exposes you to >> problems when it just doesn't follow the intent of the >> writers. > > > Of course, but when you find a discrepancy, you should file a bug > report, not assume that the documentation is wrong. But you see, in this case a member of my team was reading the latest documentation, and using the latest version. So everything looked correct to him, but he didn't realize that he was making our code incompatible with the last ~10 years of OCaml. In any case, we have worked around it by testing Sys.ocaml_version. Thanks to everyone who replied for their suggestions. Is there any reason why Sys.ocaml_version is a string, by the way? Shouldn't it be some kind of numerical representation to make it easy to do ordered comparisons? Thanks all, Ezra