This raises two questions:
1) how important is it to allow third-party modules to extend the
namespace?
2) how important is it to offer a uniform package structure (where
levels are always separated by '.' rather than some level by '.' and
some by '_')?
For the moment, we have considered point 1 not very important and point
2 a little more. There are several reasons to disregard point 1. Among
these, clarity of origin (as in "is this module endorsed by Batteries or
not?") and documentation issues (as in "gosh, this module pretends to be
part of [Data] but I can't find the documentation anywhere in the
documentation of Batteries, wtf?").
Do you believe that we should have chosen otherwise?
Cheers,
David
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 10:06 +0000, Richard Jones wrote:
> Your biggest problem is using dot ('.') instead of underscore ('_').
> Using a dot means that the System namespace cannot be extended by
> external packages. If you use an underscore then an external package
> can extend the namespace (eg. by providing System_Newpackage)
>
> Rich.
>
--
David Teller-Rajchenbach
Security of Distributed Systems
http://www.univ-orleans.fr/lifo/Members/David.Teller
Angry researcher: French Universities need reforms, but the LRU act brings
liquidations.
_______________________________________________
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
