From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, DNS_FROM_SECURITYSAGE,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCD6BBBAF for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:30:03 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AoUBAAayI0lC+VypkGdsb2JhbACTGT4BAQEBCQkMBxEDsw2LWAEDAQOCdoIN X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,631,1220220000"; d="scan'208";a="20131375" Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.169]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 19 Nov 2008 15:29:58 +0100 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id k3so565272ugf.4 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:29:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:from:to :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:x-mailer:sender; bh=ygUkSjxjXhtTm//X+acF6ve44DHaIcd9MsjwhZjJmGY=; b=Pqp3sLd9tKTVvEw0wcUIdpI/ibkJbuqWFHiue70NOHxSuA+3AeqHOxgOK6UmlCofD7 6tmf3s9G+wiMCx749GUlGSzcc6K772opB54ef2e1otgRH/qUBIMwRI/46piR8I3H4/bD U1ydbEfq0P99uQASk9V7Mzx17g19TB+akA4po= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references :x-mailer:sender; b=L2kXECUXPJZ0Ipw/k2sPYnFRyzcCOdvGkulyRUQhiwHbM61xIKImYCpjsouJVZ8Jiq voNB1Fea2DJnwFBb18Z75HTXrjSPpo1WkNIuagpnhMV50Zqwq6ItLZjMv4+kmwm/mmUm DvaWZzNydiD+fg3yEBgflUBy5wQYYeDlIqsPA= Received: by 10.86.4.14 with SMTP id 14mr732589fgd.76.1227104997641; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:29:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.1.34? (151-113.0-85.cust.bluewin.ch [85.0.113.151]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d4sm1037113fga.5.2008.11.19.06.29.56 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:29:56 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <8852F1B5-5D01-4C98-BEE8-1217F6EBFA41@erratique.ch> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Daniel_B=FCnzli?= To: OCaml List In-Reply-To: <20081119133652.GB1646@usha.takhisis.invalid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Wanted: your feedback on the hierarchy of OCaml Batteries Included Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:28:53 +0100 References: <1227002178.6170.25.camel@Blefuscu> <20081118100625.GA25627@annexia.org> <421532A1-E2CA-404F-8387-E11DA9B3DE79@erratique.ch> <20081119133652.GB1646@usha.takhisis.invalid> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) Sender: =?UTF-8?B?RGFuaWVsIELDvG56bGk=?= X-Spam: no; 0.00; bunzli:01 buenzli:01 ocaml:01 clashes:01 clashes:01 python's:01 corresponds:01 maintainers:01 caml-list:01 otoh:02 roots:02 python:03 python:03 external:03 external:03 > Yes, but that's not a good reason to give up hierarchies completely. > The advantage of hierarchies is to have less top-level roots, which > reduce the likelihood of clashes with external libraries. I think that the name clash problem is overblown. Really. Would it arise concretly I prefer developer cooperation rather than have the problem solved beforehand by forcing a bureaucracy on me (and even the hierarchy cannot prevent the problem completely). Besides in batteries the maintainers control everything that is below the Batteries module so it is their duty to avoid clashes in their name space and would a clash with an external library B occur I can use Batteries.B to refer to the battery one. Someone mentionned python's library, if it corresponds to this [1], then I see no hierarchy there (OTOH nobody tells me that python users are actually screaming for a hierarchy on their list). Best, Daniel [1] http://docs.python.org/library/