From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id pA4DQAwP001187
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 14:26:12 +0100
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhICAKHns07RVdU2kGdsb2JhbABEmlOPMQgiAQEBAQkJDQcUBCGBcgEBAQMBEgIkCAEbHAIDAQsGBQsNCRYPCQMCAQIBEREBBQEcEwgBAR6HYJd3CotUgmGFQj2IcAIFCokhBJQchTGBLYZcPYQL
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,455,1315173600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="116922257"
Received: from mail-yw0-f54.google.com ([209.85.213.54])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 04 Nov 2011 14:26:11 +0100
Received: by ywt32 with SMTP id 32so3611639ywt.27
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 06:26:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=AfFKz5XQWRZFekgE9Xr8ej2+an/kOgTtpy1VtjbG1Vo=;
        b=VXHiSajh7o7m+FHeHyRKx6H8B7yx4QOdG14lP3lIjmt2OfWDenHEDxNzLo9Oz2UwMl
         bKDW+gzR/P+63KDfzjHDlywt78K1nqeUMAMdNUsWUS5l7rBq8kgahjQZQ5bFaFzGFQxp
         TuKObzVSiFUABQs5pve0tQxqRGKxHWS3h1lJQ=
Received: by 10.150.177.12 with SMTP id z12mr14297910ybe.14.1320413170883;
        Fri, 04 Nov 2011 06:26:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.65] (99-121-78-10.lightspeed.lnngmi.sbcglobal.net. [99.121.78.10])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm4759196anp.12.2011.11.04.06.26.09
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Fri, 04 Nov 2011 06:26:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4EB3E7EE.7060409@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 09:26:06 -0400
From: Edgar Friendly <thelema314@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110922 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: caml-list@inria.fr
References: <7EB42100-0E5F-4FBB-8CB8-A318926F0E0E@x9c.fr> <CAC3Lx=YDsFk-AOTpgpXMH1jh3ra2ACWYohDZ1NBVhLbMiP2DuA@mail.gmail.com> <3AFFA70C-BD82-4A7B-94E6-7FAB5BC93148@x9c.fr> <4EB2F67D.6070202@inria.fr> <20111104092409.GA22221@ccellier.rd.securactive.lan> <4EB3B6A9.7090506@inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <4EB3B6A9.7090506@inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [ANN] Argot: 1.0 release

On 11/04/2011 05:55 AM, Fabrice Le Fessant wrote:
>  The other reason is that we haven't tried Batteries or Core enough
>  yet, we have constraints, and we must make sure that if we rely on
>  the some library, the library fit these constraints. For example, I
>  know that Core has not been tested on Windows, and I don't know for
>  Batteries. Also, we want to separate between "lang" and "system",
>  i.e. modules that can be implemented with the core language, and
>  modules that have system dependencies.
>

Batteries works for me under Windows, although it's not heavily tested.  
It's pure ocaml (no C stubs), and the build system is a thin `make` 
wrapper on top of ocamlbuild.

>  Finally, unlike other companies using OCaml, we want to provide
>  support on the language itself, which means the compilers, other dev
>  tools, and also basic libraries. So, at some point, we will have to
>  contribute to either Core or Batteries, or both, but before that, we
>  need to think more about our own idea of what a good standard library
>  should be, to choose the best candidate from our point of view.

I agree there's a need for a good conversation about what a good 
standard library should be, and am interested in hearing more your point 
of view.

E.