From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR, SPF_FAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F4DEBC6D for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:52:20 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAELJn0fAXQImh2dsb2JhbACQJwEBAQgKKYEUni0 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,276,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="6732837" Received: from discorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.38]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2008 09:52:20 +0100 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m0U8q7mc006682 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:52:19 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAELJn0dQW+UCh2dsb2JhbACQJwEBAQgKKYEUni0 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,276,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="6732836" Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) ([80.91.229.2]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2008 09:52:19 +0100 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JK8g2-0004Ys-FX for caml-list@inria.fr; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:52:14 +0000 Received: from ks300734.kimsufi.com ([91.121.65.225]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:52:14 +0000 Received: from sylvain by ks300734.kimsufi.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:52:14 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: caml-list@inria.fr From: Sylvain Le Gall Subject: Re: [OSR] OCaml Standard Recommandation Process Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:52:08 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1201440183.6302.27.camel@Blefuscu> <1201541440.6747.68.camel@Blefuscu> <1201554728.19148.53.camel@flake.lan.gerd-stolpmann.de> <200801282139.07894.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <479F590D.6020706@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ks300734.kimsufi.com User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1pl2 (Debian) Sender: news X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 47A03AB7.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; le-gall:01 ocaml:01 gerd:01 stolpmann:01 ocaml:01 stdlib:01 stdlib:01 distro:01 semantics:01 edgar:98 cathedral:98 cathedral:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 compiling:02 On 29-01-2008, Edgar Friendly wrote: > Jon Harrop wrote: >> On Monday 28 January 2008 21:12:08 Gerd Stolpmann wrote: >>> As it was mentioned, we cannot modify OCaml itself. We can ask here and >>> there for changes, e.g. when core APIs could be improved so user add-ons >>> have an easier life. But the OCaml language itself is only a matter of >>> INRIA. It is still a cathedral, not a bazaar (I don't see any change >>> here - except that the cathedral is now completely built). So any >>> discussions about changing the language (try finally) or the stdlib are >>> off-topic. >> >> Can we clear up once and for all whether or not we can improve the stdlib? >> > > I wish I could answer your question authoritatively. The best I can > tell from the situation comes to this: > > 1) The community now has some permission to make a distribution out of > the OCaml code created at INRIA. > > 2) This distribution should (Must?) not break backwards compatibility > with the currently official, INRIA-blessed distro. > > The way I interpret these two gives me/us limited ability to improve the > stdlib. One question for the community involves both directions of > migration. #2 insists that INRIA-OCaml programs have the same semantics > (including triggering the same warts of the language) under > Community-OCaml. i.e. taking a program compiled under INRIA-OCaml and > compiling it under Community-OCaml should "just work". The reverse -- > going from Community-OCaml to INRIA-OCaml -- isn't guaranteed to work in > the same way, *but* the question comes: how much work must the user > spend to translate from Community-OCaml to INRIA-OCaml. [...] I am not sure that i understand you. "Community distribution" should just be "INRIA-Ocaml" + some others libraries. I am really not sure that anyone talk about anything else. In other word, what have been talked about is that ocaml INRIA distribution will stay as is, but people can take it to put it into the center of a larger distribution. If i read you well, you are thinking that we can change things inside ocaml INRIA distribution. That is not true. And anyway, if such a thing should happen, you will see a change in INRIA license, that will permit you to do so. For now, this is not the case. Sorry if i didn't catch your point. Regards, Sylvain Le Gall