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=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none 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 7D308BB84 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 2008 02:14:14 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AioDAOxmpEjUnw4Romdsb2JhbACCLo9SAQEBAQEBBwUGCRGkAYFV X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,212,1217800800"; d="scan'208";a="16130159" Received: from pih-relay04.plus.net ([212.159.14.17]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 15 Aug 2008 02:14:14 +0200 Received: from [90.198.246.64] (helo=beast.local) by pih-relay04.plus.net with esmtpa (Exim) id 1KTmxJ-0003vP-O0; Fri, 15 Aug 2008 01:14:13 +0100 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: "Nicolas Pouillard" , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Haskell vs OCaml Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 01:15:18 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <200808142216.26328.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <1218750570-sup-7635@ausone.local> In-Reply-To: <1218750570-sup-7635@ausone.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200808150115.18531.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Plusnet-Relay: 30dd31fd934ffb375c6865c94c2a0b38 X-Spam: no; 0.00; haskell:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 frog:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 btw:03 algorithms:03 informal:04 distinguish:05 i'm:09 ltd:87 think:13 products:86 kind:13 On Thursday 14 August 2008 22:50:19 you wrote: > I'm talking about the informal algorithms, their independent of that kind > of things... Yes, that may well be true. I think we would need in-depth knowledge of Darcs to be able to distinguish between the two. Do any OCaml projects use Darcs, BTW? -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e