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 LAA30785; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:44:04 +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 LAA30775 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:44:04 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from d12lmsgate-2.de.ibm.com (d12lmsgate-2.de.ibm.com [195.212.91.200]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g7F9i3v23527 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:44:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from d12relay01.de.ibm.com (d12relay01.de.ibm.com [9.165.215.22]) by d12lmsgate-2.de.ibm.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g7F9hxq6043170; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:43:59 +0200 Received: from d10hubm1.telaviv.ibm.com (d10ml001.telaviv.ibm.com [9.148.216.55]) by d12relay01.de.ibm.com (8.12.3/NCO/VER6.3) with ESMTP id g7F9hwet032666; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:43:59 +0200 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Namespace proposal To: caml-list@inria.fr, Michael Vanier X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.7 March 21, 2001 Message-ID: From: "Ohad Rodeh" Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:43:58 +0300 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D10ML001/10/M/IBM(Release 5.0.9a |January 7, 2002) at 15/08/2002 12:43:58 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk I liked the "ocaml forever" bit :-). My personal experience has been that all the modifications I've requested from the Caml folk were carried out. On the other hand, I can easily think of some language modifications. As long as the core developers are willing to listen to the community, I don't think there is a big problem. By the way, I do think we need some kind of package/namespace approach. My personal contribution was the "emrg" mini-tool, adapted from the Ensemble distribution. Also, the Caml team was convinced enough that namespaces were an issue to add the "-pack" option to v3.05. Just my two cents, Ohad. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ohad Rodeh tel: +972-3-6401641 IBM Haifa, storage research Michael Vanier cc: caml-list@inria.fr Sent by: Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Namespace proposal owner-caml-list@pauill ac.inria.fr 12/08/2002 20:31 The namespace proposal brings up a related issue. Is there any interest in having a more formal process for making requests for enhancements to the ocaml language analogous to (e.g.) the Python Enhancement Proposals (PEPs) for python (http://www.python.org/peps) or similar processes for perl, ruby, and java? I can see advantages and disadvantages to this approach. The advantage is that there is an organized record of proposals, commentary on proposals, etc. The disadvantage is that I suspect that a lot of feature requests might be unimplementable or require a huge amount of research to see if they're implementable (e.g. generically overloaded operators), as opposed to PEPs, which are generally fairly trivial. What do people think? Ocaml forever, Mike ------------------- 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 ------------------- 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