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=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,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 mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91E2DBC6C for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:26:10 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAEvIp0fAXQInh2dsb2JhbACQKgEBAQgKKZYnhW8 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,306,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="8766862" Received: from concorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.39]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 05 Feb 2008 11:26:09 +0100 Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m15AQ261027755 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:26:09 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAMLIp0fRVZK1k2dsb2JhbACQKgEBAQEHBAQLCBaWKYVv X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,306,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="7613008" Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.181]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 05 Feb 2008 11:26:08 +0100 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id m34so3133114wag.9 for ; Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:25:58 -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=2Rd0JbUTvyu718mvSzhfiZdd0X64AxSP771bvfGIVXI=; b=vAEtmhyqH1Vtkne1ZcrjqXQLXh74FommdCejnGSfK7oVYN4/Hzkt3X/Pvj/b6N0ABn0fXCX2LgYXeLL2ZMoEDXhlxf6j7PSviBwZU56/4TNRaGapEHUa18HOKSWrXr48LfrjOGly5s/IKYHs5610oLfHrr1PqVRtLJTyHhRzo9c= 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=BKPmRCJS1xoGKq+gCqA4LQYrLpgnrY9VAgGl8wAvi9HMrTfbT7vI6qtnjyYtJFdrzOkzX79chcv+7fzCrdXzrpiKW8JPGr5hJ6LCJutERsTSRdk7X9Tr59KmPoBzzeDsYw/uYxmEJ9YMZEmJUVFy4ehIhucU8V9sQNFjia+E2mw= Received: by 10.114.94.1 with SMTP id r1mr8207432wab.32.1202207158009; Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:25:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.1.58? ( [85.1.105.53]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k5sm22605906nfd.23.2008.02.05.02.25.56 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:25:57 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <9A13D5E1-E455-4019-B0BA-D8D7DD4CE49E@erratique.ch> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?B=FCnzli_Daniel?= To: caml-list List In-Reply-To: <20080205101221.GA3922@snarc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [OSR] Exceptionless error management Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:26:00 +0100 References: <1202205644.6226.5.camel@Blefuscu> <20080205101221.GA3922@snarc.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Daniel=20B=FCnzli?= X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 47A839BA.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; bunzli:01 buenzli:01 monadic:01 haskell's:01 variants:01 pervasives:01 monadic:01 ocaml:01 variants:01 ocaml:01 polymorphic:01 polymorphic:01 caml-list:01 constraint:01 variant:02 Le 5 f=E9vr. 08 =E0 11:12, Vincent Hanquez a =E9crit : > looking at the page, I find a proposal (beginning), and a lots of =20 > people > disaggreeing at the end. I agree with this I think it should be moved to a "rejected proposals" =20= section. When I find some time I will add a preamble explaining why it =20= was rejected. > I can see lots of people are concerned by using polymorphic variant =20= > (and > I certainly agree with those), and people asking for a monadic approch > (haskell's either like). Still I think this is a little bit sad. Using polymorphic variants =20 isn't that bad at all as long as we just use the following _closed_ =20 type [ `Value of ... | `Error of ... ]. This would allow us to move =20 forward despite that fact that Pervasives is frozen (and no I'm not =20 interested in forking it). Sure we can have monadic stuff, new types, =20= new infrastructure etc. but I try to design solely within the =20 constraint of the ocaml system as it stands because I know that's =20 something has been there for more than 10 years and continues to be =20 maintained. Polymorphic variants have the advantage to allow us to =20 standardize across modules without needing changes to the ocaml system. Best, Daniel=