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=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E544BC6C for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2007 15:46:12 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAEcBNEfOvjGroWdsb2JhbACPAQEBAQECBQQGEhc X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,395,1188770400"; d="scan'208";a="19113688" Received: from web54601.mail.re2.yahoo.com ([206.190.49.171]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with SMTP; 09 Nov 2007 15:46:11 +0100 Received: (qmail 24923 invoked by uid 60001); 9 Nov 2007 14:46:10 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=Pg6PDRth7jGwqaFvhIOMOzeHn+gMRbcI9/GjRP5QdrVZUW4hTDxtFjp0r5mOlvWSZk3dCU9twPYQ5dUGCRcoTZAz/snFy/8EaVV+Wl57crKzdkhh5xsOqvpBo+x+vOLxx7Dj+xjp6XFc9D0i7srWbE21e9hX8LMXyDnDX8HdzI0=; X-YMail-OSG: E.Cy6ZEVM1koySOQG9mChbPbooyiesNMKy3AWddQ Received: from [82.155.251.159] by web54601.mail.re2.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:46:10 GMT Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 14:46:10 +0000 (GMT) From: Dario Teixeira Subject: Re: [Caml-list] A sound semantics for OCaml light To: Martin Jambon , Scott Owens Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <634971.24746.qm@web54601.mail.re2.yahoo.com> X-Spam: no; 0.00; semantics:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 o'caml:01 skewed:01 nomenclature:01 cheers:01 carbon:98 caml-list:01 caml:02 ambiguous:02 naive:03 problem:05 footprint:08 reasonably:09 > May I suggest another name? > There's already Caml light. > In my opinion, having the name start with "ocaml" is a good idea (or > should even be mandatory for every ocaml-derived product). > It should just be followed by something that is reasonably not ambiguous. Hi, On a similar vein, has anyone noticed that "OCaml" and "O'Caml" produce different results in Google? Could some (naïve) language popularity statistics be skewed unfavourably towards Ocaml because of this? And should we as a community stick to one nomenclature to avoid this problem?... Cheers, Dario Teixeira ___________________________________________________________ Want ideas for reducing your carbon footprint? Visit Yahoo! For Good http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/environment.html