Re: [Caml-list] Namespace proposal

["Ohad Rodeh" <ORODEH@il.ibm.com>]

I liked the "ocaml forever" bit :-).

My personal experience has been that all the <reasonable> modifications
I've requested from the Caml folk were carried out. On the other hand, I
can
easily think of some <non-reasonable> language modifications. As long
as the core developers are willing to listen to the community, I don't
think
there is a big problem.

By the way, I do think we need some kind of package/namespace approach.
My personal contribution was the "emrg" mini-tool, adapted from the
Ensemble
distribution. Also, the Caml team was convinced enough that namespaces were
an issue to add the "-pack" option to v3.05.

Just my two cents,
      Ohad.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ohad Rodeh
tel: +972-3-6401641
IBM Haifa, storage research


                                                                                                                                            
                      Michael Vanier                                                                                                        
                      <mvanier@cs.caltech.ed        To:       yrashk@openeas.org                                                            
                      u>                            cc:       caml-list@inria.fr                                                            
                      Sent by:                      Subject:  Re: [Caml-list] Namespace proposal                                            
                      owner-caml-list@pauill                                                                                                
                      ac.inria.fr                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                            
                      12/08/2002 20:31                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                            




The namespace proposal brings up a related issue.  Is there any interest in
having a more formal process for making requests for enhancements to the
ocaml language analogous to (e.g.) the Python Enhancement Proposals (PEPs)
for python (http://www.python.org/peps) or similar processes for perl,
ruby, and java?  I can see advantages and disadvantages to this approach.
The advantage is that there is an organized record of proposals, commentary
on proposals, etc.  The disadvantage is that I suspect that a lot of
feature requests might be unimplementable or require a huge amount of
research to see if they're implementable (e.g. generically overloaded
operators), as opposed to PEPs, which are generally fairly trivial.  What
do people think?

Ocaml forever,

Mike
-------------------
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




-------------------
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