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=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAC23BC6B for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 16:45:50 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAHCQKUfAXQInh2dsb2JhbACOaAEBAQgKKQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,358,1188770400"; d="scan'208";a="3921620" Received: from concorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.39]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 01 Nov 2007 16:45:50 +0100 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id lA1FjoDs016394 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 16:45:50 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAKWRKUfLENaHn2dsb2JhbACOaAEBAQEHBAYJCBg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,358,1188770400"; d="scan'208";a="3804605" Received: from ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net ([203.16.214.135]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 01 Nov 2007 16:45:49 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAIyOKUd5LGK+Wmdsb2JhbAAMjlIBIA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,358,1188743400"; d="scan'208";a="179328286" Received: from ppp121-44-98-190.lns10.syd6.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.201]) ([121.44.98.190]) by ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 02 Nov 2007 02:15:43 +1030 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Google trends From: skaller To: Richard Jones Cc: caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: <20071101124645.GA719@furbychan.cocan.org> References: <200711010102.39348.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <20071101094629.GA28190@furbychan.cocan.org> <1193918424.6008.2.camel@rosella.wigram> <20071101124645.GA719@furbychan.cocan.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 02:45:42 +1100 Message-Id: <1193931942.5839.4.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4729F4AE.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml:01 cathedral:98 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 compilers:01 caml-list:01 let:03 thu:05 thu:05 consortium:05 fork:05 shared:06 shared:06 On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 12:46 +0000, Richard Jones wrote: > On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 11:00:24PM +1100, skaller wrote: > > No they couldn't. The Cathedral would never let them. > > Ridiculous - they could have done a friendly fork of the code. Code > could have been shared both ways between the OCaml-on-dot-Net and the > OCaml-native compilers. Sure, like code is shared between Ocaml and all the clients that write code that the Ocaml Team doesn't want. There's a reason for that: the Ocaml team has limited resources to maintain their code base, they draw a line around it because it is primarily a research vehicle. > They chose _not_ to do that. I thought MS is a member of the Ocaml consortium. -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net