From: jeanmarc.eber@lexifi.com
To: Xavier Leroy <xavier.leroy@inria.fr>
Cc: sebastien FURIC <sebastien.furic@tni-valiosys.com>, caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Hashtbl.hash and Hashtbl.hash_param
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:59:26 +0200 (MEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1030442366.3d6b4d7eb7db1@imp.pro.proxad.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020827102435.A17823@pauillac.inria.fr>
Quoting Xavier Leroy <xavier.leroy@inria.fr>:
>
> However, we need to think twice before changing the hashing function,
> because this would cause trouble to users that store hashtables in
> files using output_value/input_value: if the hash function changes
> before writing and reading, the hashtable read becomes unusable.
>
> Hence, a request for OCaml users: if you use hashtables whose keys are
> structured data (not just strings or integers), *and* your program
> stores hashtables to files, *and* it's important for you that these
> persistent hashtables can be read back with future versions of OCaml,
> then please drop me a line.
>
That is an important point that should, I think, at least be clearly said.
Personally, I always thought that values written with output_value (more
generally marshaled ocaml values) were only guaranteed to be compatible for a
given version of ocaml. I never considered output_value as a "long term" storing
solution, but only a "short term" one (good example: *.cmo ans *.cmi files
generated by the ocaml compiler), not to speak about calculated hash values...
Personally, I *want* the ocaml team to be able to change internal
representation, optimize hash functions etc in the hope that this produces an
even better system! (BTW, I may be wrong, but didnt some tags change between
3.04 and 3.05, but maybe this didnt change marshaled values ?)
More generally, the concept and importance of 100% backward compatibility
should be discussed. I can not hope for 100% backward compatibility and hope
for big progresses on the ocaml compiler... no ? If people really want 100%
compatibilty, they should stay with an ocaml version.
Conclusion: personally, I dont want progress of the compiler made difficult by
a 100% backward compatibility "religion". What do other users of ocaml think
about it? (I agree that this is of course a question that is as old as the
existence of computer languages: its more a question about what stage of
development we think ocaml has reached now)
Jean-Marc Eber
LexiFi
-------------------
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-08-27 9:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-08-23 15:24 sebastien FURIC
2002-08-23 15:45 ` sebastien FURIC
2002-08-23 16:27 ` Florian Douetteau
2002-08-27 8:24 ` Xavier Leroy
2002-08-27 9:59 ` jeanmarc.eber [this message]
2002-08-27 10:58 ` Alain Frisch
2002-08-27 16:12 ` Blair Zajac
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1030442366.3d6b4d7eb7db1@imp.pro.proxad.net \
--to=jeanmarc.eber@lexifi.com \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
--cc=sebastien.furic@tni-valiosys.com \
--cc=xavier.leroy@inria.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox