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 MAA02569; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:06:02 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA22254 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:06:01 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from kraid.nerim.net (smtp-102.nerim.net [62.4.16.102]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h2UA61502733 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:06:01 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from inria.fr (planar.net0.nerim.net [213.41.168.102]) by kraid.nerim.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7849540F66 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:06:00 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:06:27 +0200 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] camlimages vs. labltk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) From: Damien Doligez To: caml-list@inria.fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <20030328150028.GA9211@iliana> Message-Id: <45905683-6297-11D7-B6B4-0003930FCE12@inria.fr> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Spam: no; 0.00; damien:01 caml-list:01 camlimages:01 labltk:01 sven:01 luther:01 -pack:01 propper:01 renaming:01 namespaces:01 doligez:01 module:03 wrote:03 hack:03 library:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Friday, March 28, 2003, at 04:00 PM, Sven Luther wrote: > Does this not sound as a ugly hack ? Not to me... > Would it not be easier to have something akin to -pack, but without its > technical problems, and have each library pack its module into a > namespace propper to this library ? 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 ? > If all library did this by default, at library build time, then there > would be no need to rename the imports, since those imports would > already have the modified (that is Library.Module) names ? You can't avoid renaming of imports unless you have a centralized allocation of namespaces, and _that_ sounds like an ugly hack to me. -- Damien ------------------- 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