Re: [Caml-list] Wanted: your feedback on the hierarchy of OCaml Batteries Included

["Benedikt Grundmann" <benedikt.grundmann@googlemail.com>]

Somehow I forgot reply back when you posted this reply.  And I was just
reminded when I read this:

"Batteries is meant to serve the following purposes:
 [snip]
provide consistent abstractions and APIs for otherwise independent libraries.
"

on

http://wiki.cocan.org/events/europe/ocamlmeetinggrenoble2009

How can you expect to provide consistent abstractions if you are
not willing to make those decisions?

Cheers,

Bene

2008/11/18 David Teller <David.Teller@univ-orleans.fr>:
> Ok, that's an interesting point. Now, we just need to all agree on one
> standard :)
>
> On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 12:28 +0000, Benedikt Grundmann wrote:
>> > Do you see any better way of managing the complexity of all this?
>> Yes don't introduce it at all, make a decision to use or not use labels
>> and stick with it.  Similarly make a decision to use or not use exceptions
>> as the "default", suffix / rename alternative functions as appropriate
>> (consistently). Consistency is a big win.  Not only as it speeds you up
>> when you read/modify other people's code it also reduces the amount
>> of decisions you have to do when writing new code.
>>
>> http://ocaml.janestreet.com/?q=node/28
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Bene
>>
> --
> David Teller-Rajchenbach
>  Security of Distributed Systems
>  http://www.univ-orleans.fr/lifo/Members/David.Teller
>  Angry researcher: French Universities need reforms, but the LRU act brings liquidations.
>
>



-- 
Calvin: I try to make everyone's day a little more
surreal.

(From Calvin & Hobbes)