From: Nicolas C. <war...@fr...> - 2004-03-20 10:15:34
|
> Before anything, I'd like to mention the recent exchange about another > "extlib" in the caml-list and others. I'm little embarrassed in the > current situation. If I remember correctly, another "extlib" is older > than ours, so, in my opinion, we have to change the name. Whatever > reasons there are, we have to give a due credit to the previous work. > If we are going to change the nature of our library, then it is a good > opportunity to change the name. I'll answer this one separatly. Shawn Wagner actually have a library known has ExtLib. He contacted me directly when we first released "our" ExtLib in order to ask if we were planing to change the name. I answered no. The reason was that : - no announcement of his library have been made on the official caml list - it was not registered in the Humps The first info I found concerning Shawn ExtLib was on 6 Jul 2003, at this time we were actively working to release 1.0. I'm not sure that the first released hold the name (or tomorrow I'll feel like releasing some "Longhorn" software !-) IMHO, there is nothing to change, having a name conflict is okay as long as the people can make the difference, and I think we have more user than other Extlib. But if most of people here agree to change the name, then let's do so... Regards, Nicolas Cannasse |
From: Yamagata Y. <yor...@mb...> - 2004-03-20 23:54:11
|
From: "Nicolas Cannasse" <war...@fr...> Subject: Re: [Ocaml-lib-devel] Future of ExtLib Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 11:15:45 +0100 > Shawn Wagner actually have a library known has ExtLib. > He contacted me directly when we first released "our" ExtLib in order to ask > if we were planing to change the name. I answered no. The reason was that : > - no announcement of his library have been made on the official caml list > - it was not registered in the Humps > The first info I found concerning Shawn ExtLib was on 6 Jul 2003, at this > time we were actively working to release 1.0. > I'm not sure that the first released hold the name (or tomorrow I'll feel > like releasing some "Longhorn" software !-) > IMHO, there is nothing to change, having a name conflict is okay as long as > the people can make the difference, and I think we have more user than other > Extlib. But if most of people here agree to change the name, then let's do > so... OK. I follow your decision. However, there is still issue of name collision of modules. I'd like to propose doing optionally -pack the module for a name chosen by a user. -- Yamagata Yoriyuki |
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 |
From: Yamagata Y. <yor...@mb...> - 2004-03-20 23:54:09
|
From: "Nicolas Cannasse" <war...@fr...> Subject: Re: [Ocaml-lib-devel] Future of ExtLib Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 11:20:18 +0100 > 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... Perhaps many people would want to stay with old stdlib because of the stability issue, and just because it is easier. Concerning libraries, I want my library depend to Extlib. But if a user have to switch to new stdlib just for using my library, then I feel it is too much to ask. > Concerning diet set/map, I'm not sure I understand for what kind of general > purpose they're useful ? Diet uses less memory for sets which contain large intervals, but I agree that it may not be especially useful for the general use. -- Yamagata Yoriyuki |