Re: [Ocaml-lib-devel] Goals & Process

[John M. S. <sk...@oz...>]

>=20
> Hum, this does not prevent various developpers to code the same functio=
ns, and
> the admins will still have to choose among hundreds.=20


I think you are very hopeful :-)

>If they aren't afraid, we
> can do that, but I still think a discussion about what's needed would s=
ave time.


> I agree this kind of discussion can be messy, but by giving the types o=
f the
> functions and a comment =E0 la ocamldoc, an agreement could be reached =
quickly.

A person suggesting an extension should write a proposal and
see the reaction to it before proceeding. Although this process is
slower than just doing it, some discussion is valuable.

As a matter of interest: the *principle* driving force
behing core language changes in the C++ language in the latter
time before standardisation was needs exposed by the library
working group.

In reverse: a consistent set of library
facilities should often model a missing core language combinator.

For example map, iter, fold, count should be combinators, but the
core language isn't strong enough to support that so they're
a collection of library functions instead.
I myself miss 'count' on hashtables.

--=20
John Max Skaller, mailto:sk...@oz...
snail:10/1 Toxteth Rd, Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia.
voice:61-2-9660-0850