From: Nicolas C. <war...@fr...> - 2004-03-20 10:20:07
|
> I'm not clear about what you want to do. But if you mean, say, we > provide List module in extlib, so that override List of the stdlib, > then I think it is definitely a bad idea. In addition to forcing to > use the new stdlib in order to access some module in extlib, it will > cause incomprehensive "inconsistent assumption" error if modules using > old stdlib and using new stdlib are mixed up. If we use -pack option, > then the change would be more bearable, but I prefer to split extlib > to several packages, one for replacing stdlib, another for providing > new features. Maybe we could split the packages for their purpose, > like providing new data structure, I/O, etc, too. I don't agree on this "inconsistent assumption" since the user, when actually "switching" to ExtLib, will only have to compile its codebase using ExtLib instead of stdlib. It's not an easy jump, and I'm little concerned about the problems that extlib incompabilities (such as different exception policy) will show in 3rd party librairies that the user will not be able to modify in order to use with ExtLib... > > Concerning additionnals modules here's what's on my wish-list (which is > > somehow also on my current todo-list) : > > - base64 encode/decode > > - abstract high level I/O with support for C basic types ( read_i16 , > > write_f16 ..... ) > > - zlib deflate/inflate written in pure OCaml. > > Do you interested in diet set and map? (set and map over integer, > internally represented as sets and maps over intervals.) I could > contribute them. Also, I'd like to change install.ml so that it > ignores findlib if the destination directory is explicitly given by > the arguments. Don't hesitate to change install.ml. Concerning diet set/map, I'm not sure I understand for what kind of general purpose they're useful ? Regards, Nicolas Cannasse |