From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA18220; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:00:49 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA18197 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:00:48 +0100 (MET) Received: from epexch01.qlogic.org ([63.170.40.3]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h1LH0lH00596 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:00:47 +0100 (MET) Received: from epmailtmp.qlogic.org ([10.20.33.254]) by epexch01.qlogic.org with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:59:24 -0600 Received: from [10.20.33.146] ([10.20.33.146]) by epmailtmp.qlogic.org with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:59:24 -0600 Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:10:42 -0600 (CST) From: Brian Hurt X-X-Sender: Reply-To: Brian Hurt To: Amit Dubey cc: Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml standard library improvement In-Reply-To: <200302211618.RAA10481@gnome.at.coli.uni-sb.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Feb 2003 16:59:24.0634 (UTC) FILETIME=[9632FBA0:01C2D9CA] Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Amit Dubey wrote: > > I've been following the discussion, and I think it's a good idea. > I have to code submit, but one thing that (unfortunately!) needs > to be discussed is the license. I usually don't follow the license threads > on this list, so I apologize if this post smacks of ignorance, but > I would suggest the LGPL is probably a good bet for such a library. > Any other suggestions? (I am ambivalent myself, and would be happy > with the GPL or BSD licenses). I vote for LGPL myself. I have a Priority Search Queue implementation I'll submit: http://www.informatik.uni-bonn.de/~ralf/talks/ICFP01.pdf With respect to strings, I think what we need is a good regular expression parsing library. Something less powerful than Ocamllex, but more powerful than strchr. > > Another note, do people think that hosting such a project on > Sourceforge might be a good idea? If there are positive replies, > (in particular, I would be interested to hear what the core Ocaml > developers think of this idea), I will volunteer to register the > project. Long term, I'd perfer to see it become part of the standard distribution. If you can gaurentee that it's always there, it'll be a lot more widely used. > > > Nicolas George writes: > > There is a problem to solve before it: the confusion between modules > > (used as namespace units) and compilation units. Supose you have a large > > set of string functions, tu split, search for words, replace, and so on. > > You want them all in one module, since you do not want to remember that > > split_on_char is in String42, but split_on_chars is in String17. But you > > do not want that as soon as you use the trivial split_on_char function, > > your resulting binary includes all the bloat for KMP word search. > > This is a good point, Nicolas. However, my feeling is that this > may not be a big problem in the begining, and it might be difficult > devising a logical way to split things before we know enough about the > scope of the problem. I'd suggest the best solution here would be to > start off keeping everything together. If there is too much bloat, > things could be split up into smaller modules, with some larger > modules that "include" other ones to provide backwards compatibility. > - We shouldn't be afraid to add functions/functionality to libraries. There should never be a string2 library, let alone a string17 library. - We shouldn't be afraid to add new libraries either- for different functionality. Regular expression parsing, for example, shouldn't be in the string library. This sounds contradictory, but it's not (quite). Every library should have a clear domain. I look at it in terms of code: libraries should come in one of two forms- either collections of simple related routines with no common infrastructure, or collections of routines which share a common infrastructure. So the string library would be a collection of simple routines. None of the routines in string call each other, or any common 'infrastructure' routines. Regular expressions have infrastructure- routines to create and manipulate DFAs and NFAs if nothing else. That common infrastructure then defines it as a seperate library- the library of everything using that infrastructure. Just my $0.02. Brian ------------------- 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