From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EA73BC84 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:47:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j2UHliLI019458 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:47:44 +0200 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA05164 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:47:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail22.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail22.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.24]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j2UHlfql019446 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:47:43 +0200 Received: (qmail 26568 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2005 17:47:40 -0000 Received: from shell4.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.116.5]) (envelope-sender ) by mail22.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 30 Mar 2005 17:47:39 -0000 Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:47:39 -0800 (PST) From: brogoff To: Jacques Carette Cc: Alex Baretta , Ocaml Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Pervasives.compare output type In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 424AE640.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 424AE63D.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 pervasives:01 baretta:01 bug:01 rewriting:01 rewriting:01 ocaml:01 langauge:01 ocaml:01 ...:98 ...:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 precedence:01 speakeasy:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Jacques Carette wrote: > Alex Baretta wrote: > > Xavier Leroy wrote: > > > It's a historical error. [...] > > > > Whether fixing such historical errors engenders more benefits than trouble is a very interesting philosophical > > question. > [...snip...] > It all depends on whether the installed base is viewed as more/less important > as the future integrity of the software system as a whole. When I was in > industry, I was in a position where I made the choice that future integrity > was more important [and I did annoy the user base but improved the basic > system a lot], and my successors made the opposite choice [which means that > mostly do 'new' features and can't fix some well-known bugs that users have > learned to work around]. Speaking as an industrial user, I don't see it as such an either/or. I'd prefer that enhancements (thisisn't a bug) which require rewriting code be done as few times as possible, so that each release doesn't require rewriting code. So, let's say for example that the implementors decide to change this, and to fix evaluation order to be left to right, I'd prefer that it were done in one release, rather than two separate ones. I think even industrial users should realize that OCaml is a research langauge, and while we're grateful that it is generally quite stable from relase to release, that research goals take some precedence. Maybe one day the implementors will decide to "radically" change things, as in the move from Caml Light to Caml Special Light/OCaml. -- Brian