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=1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 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 0645BBC6B for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:52:26 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAIsihkfAXQInh2dsb2JhbACQHwEBAQgKKZke X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,268,1196636400"; d="scan'208";a="5923115" Received: from concorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.39]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 10 Jan 2008 22:52:25 +0100 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m0ALqPTT012503 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:52:25 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAIsihkdEjsnvnmdsb2JhbACQHwEBAQEHBAYHChiZHg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,268,1196636400"; d="scan'208";a="7657163" Received: from web30511.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.201.239]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with SMTP; 10 Jan 2008 22:52:24 +0100 Received: (qmail 65278 invoked by uid 60001); 10 Jan 2008 21:52:23 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=EG2rUqJjZhjSkIXQ87HkqPvcA9CtS2eRGYYiq+8LKF+nnw9NFF00vwKpke3GFbO099CbqWUQtYGOY87J+ZFAo6R0N9hUenOhzLTWGxmHs9cQaYOWl4BZNxg9xAQYq/uX5c2RBHOu+mI/p4ZWBFwXaU1T7RY2tlRO1k3z0BHyZ1U=; X-YMail-OSG: X4smrAsVM1nKMFqC178d9UecoTrV9F35w8s16pUzQA_7xeBABQYTfFfcG_QEej5_zDRZaplZYuCL2uEiwEH5jGgujr2uoFvHICkCnciid9Ay1nd692rZB1zi6uldtg-- Received: from [141.212.108.138] by web30511.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:52:23 PST Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:52:23 -0800 (PST) From: David Thomas Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Annoying behaviour of OCaml To: caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: <1199995657.47867b0972262@webmail.in-berlin.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <447544.64925.qm@web30511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 47869399.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 bandel:01 in-berlin:01 bug:01 bug:01 overriding:01 guideline:98 wrote:01 oliver:01 oliver:01 caml-list:01 behaviour:01 instances:06 annoying:08 disagree:08 --- Oliver Bandel wrote: > Even if this would be the case, not what we expect > is of importance, but what the documentation says. > If there's a difference between documentation and > bahaviour, then there is a bug (in the documentation, > or in the implementation, or both). I disagree that expectations are of no importance. Principle of least surprise and all that... Violation of expectations is a bug not in documentation or implementation, but design. That said, there may very well be overriding concerns that force us to introduce behavior contrary to expectations in certain instances - it's one guideline of many. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping