From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CBA17F75C for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:08:37 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of yotambarnoy@gmail.com) identity=pra; client-ip=209.85.216.51; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="yotambarnoy@gmail.com"; x-sender="yotambarnoy@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of yotambarnoy@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.51 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.216.51; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="yotambarnoy@gmail.com"; x-sender="yotambarnoy@gmail.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail-qa0-f51.google.com) identity=helo; client-ip=209.85.216.51; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="yotambarnoy@gmail.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail-qa0-f51.google.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Am4BABz9ElTRVdgzm2dsb2JhbABfg2BXBIJ4sUeSR4Frh0wBgQYIFhABAQEBAQYLCwkUKoQDAQEBAgEBEgYLHQEbEgwDAQsGAwILDQ0aAwICIQEBEQEFAQoBEQYTEgIHB4gLAQMJCA2LMJAqa4swgXKDEIkgChknAwpmhhgBEQEFDo0SgUJnC4J5gVMFhQ0FkHKEdIIQgV+NIoRMGCmFLiEvgk8BAQE X-IPAS-Result: Am4BABz9ElTRVdgzm2dsb2JhbABfg2BXBIJ4sUeSR4Frh0wBgQYIFhABAQEBAQYLCwkUKoQDAQEBAgEBEgYLHQEbEgwDAQsGAwILDQ0aAwICIQEBEQEFAQoBEQYTEgIHB4gLAQMJCA2LMJAqa4swgXKDEIkgChknAwpmhhgBEQEFDo0SgUJnC4J5gVMFhQ0FkHKEdIIQgV+NIoRMGCmFLiEvgk8BAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,513,1406584800"; d="scan'208";a="94381591" Received: from mail-qa0-f51.google.com ([209.85.216.51]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 12 Sep 2014 16:08:35 +0200 Received: by mail-qa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id i13so748500qae.10 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 07:08:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=Xg7rBxxQyGooBvvh9MnjeXH/V/ttADaN9yhLAYWtIkY=; b=K4O7AeOJHqs7KTvX+oORLHd/LudWQoEgjTMD2DllbJZz7GqYE0GveFd23JPSrLIecL Y84eh7sqBPXvbwnMXxVibT0ZTlrwE4qSNx/LRztVdeZnTCJ6SxRH13io+4YZxfQrZAG5 jrgcIdmplXXLfjIo5akhmIqGdpLgUY2a8hP5n2vwIYxBbBZeWg+5FAJpRST38pjZljnn x+lcO5wX2bS/vmmClnpStqWiEf/tmytaE2A/a164ehO6lZnxLiGz7W4svZVBTGc6a5yC 4z7wjOZD6aZ4GtWsXQ7e4VsrJZRis2qvnNW0lFbWiJRvpO4Zhl8GBVgi3+0ZX7xrfDKw 6wTw== X-Received: by 10.229.40.3 with SMTP id i3mr6656878qce.30.1410530914384; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 07:08:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.174.68 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 07:08:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5410522E.3050207@inria.fr> <1410359012.3003.34.camel@thinkpad> <54106B6D.4040607@gmail.com> <54115517.9020209@inria.fr> From: Yotam Barnoy Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:08:14 -0400 Message-ID: To: Ocaml Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133cfe218c1710502ded22f Subject: Re: [Caml-list] One build system to rule them all? --001a1133cfe218c1710502ded22f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 OK so here's my summary of what I've heard here so far: - Ocaml does not yet have a (public) build system that the majority of users can be happy with for all of their project needs. - It seems difficult to have a build system that's simple enough to use for small projects, flexible enough to handle the more complicated projects, and that can scale. - While declarative, dsl-based tools are appealing, they get bogged down as you add features to them, making them become unwieldy. - A better solution seems to be using a real programming language to describe packages. In our case that should clearly be ocaml itself. The trick is making the API simple. Looking at some of the the available options: - ocamlbuild (dsl-based) is a decent basic choice, but lacks advanced features and has become weighed down by multiple file types (_tags, myocamlbuild etc). - OASIS (dsl-based) seems to be a good description layer for projects, currently farming out the difficult work of building stuff to ocamlbuild, but not really a contender in this race except as an abstraction layer. - omake (dsl-based) has some fans, but becomes overly-complex for more complicated projects. - ocp-build (dsl-based) has had nothing but criticism on this thread. Is there any ongoing work to address these criticisms? - Jenga (uses ocaml) seems promising but has heavy dependencies, and is currently not geared towards light projects. - assemblage (uses ocaml) seems promising as well, and seems focused on simplicity. Any comment from assemblage contributors on its status? Also, while I understand some of the windows hatred, the fact is, most of the world uses windows. Even using cygwin as a translation layer hurts ocaml's ability to reach people. Ideally, a windows programmer could download opam, ocaml and perhaps a mingw compiler, and begin to build projects without any need for a shell or anything POSIX-like. This means that the build system needs to obviate the need for any shell commands or makefiles. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Yaron Minsky wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 3:53 AM, Francois Berenger > wrote: > > On 09/10/2014 08:59 PM, Yotam Barnoy wrote: > >> > >> Here's part of my motivation for starting this discussion now: I > >> recently experienced a hard-drive failure and had to switch to my backup > >> windows laptop. I was dismayed that opam is still not available for > >> Windows, and while wodi is available, it's not nearly as well developed, > >> and apparently requires many hacks for different packages. > >> > >> It seems to me that these hacks are some of the things that make > >> platform compatibility hard for opam. Each build system has different > >> requirements and methods of compilation, and making this approach > >> cross-platform compatible is difficult. Ideally, a build system will > >> abstract away the things that are not inter-platform compatible. This is > >> why I don't like people using makefiles. Makefiles are not available > >> natively on Windows, and they often contain other bits of shell code > >> that isn't available on all POSIX platforms, let alone on Windows. Not > >> to mention the fact that makefiles have a very tricky and sensitive > >> syntax. > >> > >> I don't expect one build system to match everyone's requirements, but I > >> think if we get together, make a list of requirements, and try to get > >> over our personal biases, we can find something that works for most > >> people, and with some group effort, can work for even more people in > >> more use-cases. I'm not suggesting that we invent something new, but > >> that we take something good and make it better, as well as make an > >> effort to learn that tool and convert packages to use that tool. > >> > >> So here are some requirements I can think of (using some of the > >> suggestions that have been brought up): > >> - Easy to use, especially for small projects (large projects can afford > >> to put more time into their build systems) > >> - Abstract away platform considerations as much as possible. No > >> dependence on specific shells and POSIX utilities. > >> - Allows compilation of C files, which is quite common in ocaml > packages. > >> - Scalable to many directories and files > >> - Uses ocamlfind to locate packages > >> - Handles camlp4 and ppx > >> - Parallel & incremental compilation > >> > >> About Jenga: I took a quick look at Jenga, and even though I'm impressed > >> by its capabilities, the amount of code needed to be written even for > >> simple projects is overwhelming. It's clearly a very flexible and > >> powerful tool, but I'd say it's too flexible for the mainstream. There's > >> always room for a build system that's integrated into ocaml itself (like > >> Shake), but I think declarative build systems tend to be easier to > >> comprehend for the average user. > >> > >> ocp-build actually looks very interesting. The manual (which is here: > >> > >> > http://github.com/OCamlPro/ocp-build/blob/master/docs/user-manual/user-manual.pdf?raw=true > ) > >> is incomplete, but contains a nice survey of the existing build tools, > >> and motivation for making ocp-build. Has anyone had experience with > >> ocp-build? Opam seems to be using it, but they also use a makefile > >> (why?) with a bunch of shell commands inside (which is precisely the > >> problem from my perspective). ocp-build is supposedly compatible with > >> Windows, too. > > > > > > Here is one thing I dislike in ocp-build: you have to explicitely list > all > > the source files (and maybe same thing for Jenga). > > Jenga is quite flexible, so you could write your jengaroot either way > (to demand or not demand explicit source file lists.) Our internal > jengaroot does not require explicit source file lists. > > Not to confuse people, though, Jenga isn't really suitable for people > just picking up and using yet. We haven't yet written a suitable > jengaroot for general use yet (though there is a version of our > internal jengaroot that we've released, but it's not yet ready for > prime time.) So Jenga is interesting as an option to discuss, but not > yet a practical option we want to encourage casual users to try. > > > I am way too lazy to do that, especially since other tools are able > > to infer this list automatically (a library is just a list of modules, > > an executable has a single entry point, the main function in a single > file). > > > >> Yotam > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Leonardo Laguna Ruiz < > modlfo@gmail.com > >> > wrote: > >> > >> My pick is ocamlbuild because: > >> > >> - It works the same way in all platforms that I work (linux,osx, > >> windows msvc port, cygwin) > >> - If I can compile ocaml, then I have ocamlbuild > >> - It does not require external libraries > >> > >> I have to say that I feel a little bit annoyed by the fact that some > >> other build systems or tools, do not work correctly in all the > >> platforms that I want to support. > >> > >> Leonardo > >> > >> > >> > >> On 9/10/2014 4:23 PM, Gerd Stolpmann wrote: > >> > >> Am Mittwoch, den 10.09.2014, 15:29 +0200 schrieb Francois > >> Berenger: > >> > >> More seriously, concerning build systems, we clearly have > >> quite some > >> choice on the OCaml shelf: > >> - obuild > >> - ocamlbuild > >> - omake > >> - oasis (which in fact uses ocamlbuild, don't forget that) > >> > >> oasis is not a build system. It is a package description format > >> that > >> describes how to invoke the build (and more). So far there is > only > >> built-in knowledge for ocamlbuild, but this may change, and you > >> can > >> already call any external tool, so you can wrap any build system > >> you > >> want. The intention is here more to create a uniform API for > >> starting > >> the build, which may help packagers and other people who > >> routinely build > >> software. > >> > >> Gerd > >> > >> - jenga > >> - [...] > >> > >> My preffered is obuild > >> (https://github.com/ocaml-__obuild/obuild > >> ), > >> for the terseness, readability and centralization of its > build > >> descriptions. I would love to see the user community of > >> obuild grow, > >> so that we can get rid of more bugs, be able to compile > _any_ > >> OCaml project with it and implement even more cool features > >> (contributors are very welcome). > >> > >> I don't want a ring to rule them all, jut a ring that fits > >> _my_ finger. ;) > >> > >> -- > >> Regards, > >> Francois. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: > >> https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/__arc/caml-list > >> > >> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/__ocaml_beginners > >> > >> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-__bugs > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Francois. > > > > -- > > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: > > https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list > > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs > > -- > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: > https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs > --001a1133cfe218c1710502ded22f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
OK so here's my summary of what I've heard here so= far:

- Ocaml does not yet have a (public) build system = that the majority of users can be happy with for all of their project needs= .
- It seems difficult to have a build system that's simple e= nough to use for small projects, flexible enough to handle the more complic= ated projects, and that can scale.
- While declarative, dsl-based= tools are appealing, they get bogged down as you add features to them, mak= ing them become unwieldy.
- A better solution seems to be using a= real programming language to describe packages. In our case that should cl= early be ocaml itself. The trick is making the API simple.

Looking at some of the the available options:
- ocamlbui= ld (dsl-based) is a decent basic choice, but lacks advanced features and ha= s become weighed down by multiple file types (_tags, myocamlbuild etc).
- OASIS (dsl-based) seems to be a good description layer for project= s, currently farming out the difficult work of building stuff to ocamlbuild= , but not really a contender in this race except as an abstraction layer.
- omake (dsl-based) has some fans, but becomes overly-complex for = more complicated projects.=C2=A0
- ocp-build (dsl-based) has had = nothing but criticism on this thread. Is there any ongoing work to address = these criticisms?
- Jenga (uses ocaml) seems promising but has he= avy dependencies, and is currently not geared towards light projects.
=
- assemblage (uses ocaml) seems promising as well, and seems focused o= n simplicity. Any comment from assemblage contributors on its status?
=

Also, while I understand some of the windows hatred, th= e fact is, most of the world uses windows. Even using cygwin as a translati= on layer hurts ocaml's ability to reach people. Ideally, a windows prog= rammer could download opam, ocaml and perhaps a mingw compiler, and begin t= o build projects without any need for a shell or anything POSIX-like. This = means that the build system needs to obviate the need for any shell command= s or makefiles.

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Yaron Minsky &= lt;yminsky@jane= street.com> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 3:53 AM, Francois B= erenger
<francois.berenger@inria.f= r> wrote:
> On 09/10/2014 08:59 PM, Yotam Barnoy wrote:
>>
>> Here's part of my motivation for starting this discussion now:= I
>> recently experienced a hard-drive failure and had to switch to my = backup
>> windows laptop. I was dismayed that opam is still not available fo= r
>> Windows, and while wodi is available, it's not nearly as well = developed,
>> and apparently requires many hacks for different packages.
>>
>> It seems to me that these hacks are some of the things that make >> platform compatibility hard for opam. Each build system has differ= ent
>> requirements and methods of compilation, and making this approach<= br> >> cross-platform compatible is difficult. Ideally, a build system wi= ll
>> abstract away the things that are not inter-platform compatible. T= his is
>> why I don't like people using makefiles. Makefiles are not ava= ilable
>> natively on Windows, and they often contain other bits of shell co= de
>> that isn't available on all POSIX platforms, let alone on Wind= ows. Not
>> to mention the fact that makefiles have a very tricky and sensitiv= e
>> syntax.
>>
>> I don't expect one build system to match everyone's requir= ements, but I
>> think if we get together, make a list of requirements, and try to = get
>> over our personal biases, we can find something that works for mos= t
>> people, and with some group effort, can work for even more people = in
>> more use-cases. I'm not suggesting that we invent something ne= w, but
>> that we take something good and make it better, as well as make an=
>> effort to learn that tool and convert packages to use that tool. >>
>> So here are some requirements I can think of (using some of the
>> suggestions that have been brought up):
>> - Easy to use, especially for small projects (large projects can a= fford
>> to put more time into their build systems)
>> - Abstract away platform considerations as much as possible. No
>> dependence on specific shells and POSIX utilities.
>> - Allows compilation of C files, which is quite common in ocaml pa= ckages.
>> - Scalable to many directories and files
>> - Uses ocamlfind to locate packages
>> - Handles camlp4 and ppx
>> - Parallel & incremental compilation
>>
>> About Jenga: I took a quick look at Jenga, and even though I'm= impressed
>> by its capabilities, the amount of code needed to be written even = for
>> simple projects is overwhelming. It's clearly a very flexible = and
>> powerful tool, but I'd say it's too flexible for the mains= tream. There's
>> always room for a build system that's integrated into ocaml it= self (like
>> Shake), but I think declarative build systems tend to be easier to=
>> comprehend for the average user.
>>
>> ocp-build actually looks very interesting. The manual (which is he= re:
>>
>> http://github.com/= OCamlPro/ocp-build/blob/master/docs/user-manual/user-manual.pdf?raw=3Dtrue<= /a>)
>> is incomplete, but contains a nice survey of the existing build to= ols,
>> and motivation for making ocp-build. Has anyone had experience wit= h
>> ocp-build? Opam seems to be using it, but they also use a makefile=
>> (why?) with a bunch of shell commands inside (which is precisely t= he
>> problem from my perspective). ocp-build is supposedly compatible w= ith
>> Windows, too.
>
>
> Here is one thing I dislike in ocp-build: you have to explicitely list= all
> the source files (and maybe same thing for Jenga).

Jenga is quite flexible, so you could write your jengaroot eith= er way
(to demand or not demand explicit source file lists.)=C2=A0 Our internal
jengaroot does not require explicit source file lists.

Not to confuse people, though, Jenga isn't really suitable for people just picking up and using yet.=C2=A0 We haven't yet written a suitable<= br> jengaroot for general use yet (though there is a version of our
internal jengaroot that we've released, but it's not yet ready for<= br> prime time.)=C2=A0 So Jenga is interesting as an option to discuss, but not=
yet a practical option we want to encourage casual users to try.

> I am way too lazy to do that, especially since other tools are able
> to infer this list automatically (a library is just a list of modules,=
> an executable has a single entry point, the main function in a single = file).
>
>> Yotam
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Leonardo Laguna Ruiz <modlfo@gmail.com
>> <mailto:modlfo@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0My pick is ocamlbuild because:
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0- It works the same way in all platforms that I= work (linux,osx,
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0windows msvc port, cygwin)
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0- If I can compile ocaml, then I have ocamlbuil= d
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0- It does not require external libraries
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I have to say that I feel a little bit annoyed = by the fact that some
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0other build systems or tools, do not work corre= ctly in all the
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0platforms that I want to support.
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Leonardo
>>
>>
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On 9/10/2014 4:23 PM, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Am Mittwoch, den 10.09.2014, 15:2= 9 +0200 schrieb Francois
>> Berenger:
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0More seriously, con= cerning build systems, we clearly have
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0quite some
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0choice on the OCaml= shelf:
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0- obuild
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0- ocamlbuild
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0- omake
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0- oasis (which in f= act uses ocamlbuild, don't forget that)
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0oasis is not a build system. It i= s a package description format
>> that
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0describes how to invoke the build= (and more). So far there is only
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0built-in knowledge for ocamlbuild= , but this may change, and you
>> can
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0already call any external tool, s= o you can wrap any build system
>> you
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0want. The intention is here more = to create a uniform API for
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0starting
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0the build, which may help package= rs and other people who
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0routinely build
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0software.
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Gerd
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0- jenga
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0- [...]
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0My preffered is obu= ild
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(https://github.com/oca= ml-__obuild/obuild
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://github.com/oc= aml-obuild/obuild>),
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0for the terseness, = readability and centralization of its build
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0descriptions. I wou= ld love to see the user community of
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0obuild grow,
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0so that we can get = rid of more bugs, be able to compile _any_
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0OCaml project with = it and implement even more cool features
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(contributors are v= ery welcome).
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I don't want a = ring to rule them all, jut a ring that fits
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0_my_ finger. ;)
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0--
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Regards,
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Francois.
>>
>>
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0--
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Caml-list mailing list.=C2=A0 Subscription mana= gement and archives:
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/__arc/caml-list
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com= /group/__ocaml_beginners
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginn= ers>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-__bugs >>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Francois.
>
> --
> Caml-list mailing list.=C2=A0 Subscription management and archives:
> https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs

--
Caml-list mailing list.=C2=A0 Subscription management and archives:
ht= tps://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs

--001a1133cfe218c1710502ded22f--