From: Bardur A. <oca...@sc...> - 2004-04-27 13:26:07
|
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 09:17:59PM +0800, Martin Jambon wrote: > On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Bardur Arantsson wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:45:02PM +0800, Martin Jambon wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Bardur Arantsson wrote: > > > > > > > I just think of it a more experimental branch of > > > > development for the ocaml standard library. > > > > > > > > If some extension/change from Extlib proves to be highly > > > > useful to lots of developers, then it can be added to the > > > > standard library when it has matured enough to be > > > > considered stable enough for the "mainline" (which would > > > > be the INRIA O'caml standard library). > > > > > > I am afraid that the people from INRIA are very satisfied with the > > > quality of the current standard library, and will not accept any > > > significant addition because they are not paid for writing libraries (and > > > maybe not interested too). > > > > > > > Nitpick: They wouldn't actually have to write the > > libraries, they would already be written. So it wouldn't > > cost them anything to include them. > > I don't believe in this model: software is living, it has sometimes to be > rewritten or corrected. Now, you've lost me... nobody said anything about rewriting or even "correcting" ocaml itself. As long as there is 100% compatibility with existing code, there is no reason for them *not* to accept things from extlib. >They will not accept this burden. If you think that they will never accept extlib modules, then that's your perogative, but like I said (the part you cut out): The value of extlib (as a project) remains in either case. -- Bardur Arantsson <ba...@im...> <ba...@sc...> - I tell ya, they only come out at night, or, in this case, the daytime. Chief Clancy Wiggum | The Simpsons |