From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id AAA28189; Wed, 5 May 2004 00:59:40 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 AAA19186 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 00:59:39 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp.mbg.ocn.ne.jp (mbg.ocn.ne.jp [210.190.142.181]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i44MxbSH032388 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 00:59:38 +0200 Received: from localhost (p21153-adsau14honb7-acca.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp [220.111.71.153]) by smtp.mbg.ocn.ne.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DB8562BB; Wed, 5 May 2004 07:59:36 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 07:59:19 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20040505.075919.41627374.yoriyuki@mbg.ocn.ne.jp> To: ben@socialtools.net Cc: vsilyaev@mindspring.com, caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Common IO structure From: Yamagata Yoriyuki In-Reply-To: <40980BA2.1010102@socialtools.net> References: <20040503061212.GA64216@server.vns.oc.ca.us> <40980BA2.1010102@socialtools.net> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 40982059.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 yamagata:01 yoriyuki:01 yoriyuki:01 caml-list:01 2004:99 incompatible:01 facto:01 ocamlnet:01 python:01 yamagata:01 ocaml:01 widespread:03 wrote:03 library:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk From: Benjamin Geer Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Common IO structure Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 22:31:14 +0100 > Vladimir N. Silyaev wrote: > > If you felt interested, please look into the attached file io.ml. > > This looks like a good start to me; what do others think? Our problem is having too many incompatible IO system, not the lack of IO. So, what we need is the standard, not the code. Of course, if some IO library is widespread, then it will become de facto standard. I advise you to look existing IO systems for smooth integration/migration. In particular, the IO system of ocamlnet deserves a close look, because it is well thought and widly used. BTW, I think this is one of the problems of OCaml community. We do not know each other's work well, while too much being bombarded by hypes from Java/Perl/Python/C#... -- Yamagata Yoriyuki ------------------- 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