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 0A94780211 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2017 14:43:25 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; spf=None smtp.pra=r.3@libertysurf.fr; spf=None smtp.mailfrom=r.3@libertysurf.fr; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@smtp.smtpout.orange.fr Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of r.3@libertysurf.fr) identity=pra; client-ip=80.12.242.135; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="r.3@libertysurf.fr"; x-sender="r.3@libertysurf.fr"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of r.3@libertysurf.fr) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=80.12.242.135; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="r.3@libertysurf.fr"; x-sender="r.3@libertysurf.fr"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@smtp.smtpout.orange.fr) identity=helo; client-ip=80.12.242.135; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="r.3@libertysurf.fr"; x-sender="postmaster@smtp.smtpout.orange.fr"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3A8a0XbxVwdDrpXGbvjk5dtuMHPJrV8LGtZVwlr6E/?= =?us-ascii?q?grcLSJyIuqrYZRCBt8tkgFKBZ4jH8fUM07OQ6P+wHzFYqb+681k8M7V0Hycfjs?= =?us-ascii?q?sXmwFySOWkMmbcaMDQUiohAc5ZX0Vk9XzoeWJcGcL5ekGA6ibqtW1aSV3DMl9+?= =?us-ascii?q?L+HxX4rTlNif1uao+pSVbR8bqiC6ZOZIZE7++R+X7eESgIFvMLog0QbTrD1GYb?= =?us-ascii?q?IFlitTOVuPkkOktY+L95l5/nEItg=3D=3D?= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BKCwBHy9hZhofyDFBcHAEBBAEBCgEBF?= =?us-ascii?q?wEBBAEBCgEBgkSBVWuEIYohcpBOIpYwghEKhTsChGoNAQEBAQEBAQEBAQESAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BCAsLCCgvgjMigkQBAgMjZgsEFCoCAlcTCAEBijCmLoInJ4sMAQsmgy2DU4IVC?= =?us-ascii?q?4JzhVCCR4JhBYEtAYhqhGuJVYhZAn+Xa4dYhy2VWYE5TYEYfFp2hDSBdYoxAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?B?= X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BKCwBHy9hZhofyDFBcHAEBBAEBCgEBFwEBBAEBCgEBgkS?= =?us-ascii?q?BVWuEIYohcpBOIpYwghEKhTsChGoNAQEBAQEBAQEBAQESAQEBCAsLCCgvgjMig?= =?us-ascii?q?kQBAgMjZgsEFCoCAlcTCAEBijCmLoInJ4sMAQsmgy2DU4IVC4JzhVCCR4JhBYE?= =?us-ascii?q?tAYhqhGuJVYhZAn+Xa4dYhy2VWYE5TYEYfFp2hDSBdYoxAQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,489,1500933600"; d="scan'208,217";a="294884100" Received: from smtp13.smtpout.orange.fr (HELO smtp.smtpout.orange.fr) ([80.12.242.135]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA; 07 Oct 2017 14:43:24 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.14] ([90.79.217.253]) by mwinf5d72 with ME id JcjP1w00N5Ud1Tu03cjP69; Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:43:23 +0200 X-ME-Helo: [192.168.1.14] X-ME-Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:43:23 +0200 X-ME-IP: 90.79.217.253 To: caml-list@inria.fr References: <1386161829.1287374.1507128381422.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1386161829.1287374.1507128381422@mail.yahoo.com> From: R 3 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 14:43:23 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1386161829.1287374.1507128381422@mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------A6342B906ADBBAE725D867D8" Content-Language: en-US Subject: Re: [Caml-list] choosing which cairo bindings This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------A6342B906ADBBAE725D867D8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello, they are two projects made independently. cairo 1.2.0 is closer to the original API (just a collection of bindings), while cairo2 tries to capture more errors and  make a more complete ocaml interface. You should have a look at both API/documentation to see what you feel the best. I used cairo 1.2.0 and it worked well. William On 10/04/2017 04:46 PM, Philippe STRAUSS wrote: > Hello OCaml peoples, > > What are the rationale arguments for choosing between cairo 1.2.0 and > cairo2 0.5 (opam versioning)? > > > Regards. --------------A6342B906ADBBAE725D867D8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hello,

they are two projects made independently. cairo 1.2.0 is closer to the original API (just a collection of bindings), while cairo2 tries to capture more errors and  make a more complete ocaml interface. You should have a look at both API/documentation to see what you feel the best.
I used cairo 1.2.0 and it worked well.

William

On 10/04/2017 04:46 PM, Philippe STRAUSS wrote:
Hello OCaml peoples,

What are the rationale arguments for choosing between cairo 1.2.0 and cairo2 0.5 (opam versioning)?


Regards.


--------------A6342B906ADBBAE725D867D8--