On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 05:31 -0800, Dario Teixeira wrote: > Paraphrasing Einstein, I think the hierarchy should be as flat > as possible, but no flatter. For example, I see no reason to > materialise in the hierarchy the separation between persistent > and mutable data structures. The should be a documentation > issue. However, and as you noted, there are cases where some > hierarchisation may remove namespace clutter and allow for > better code reuse.
Duly noted. As you may see on our candidate replacement hierarchy, we intend to merge Data.Persistent and Data.Mutable into Data.Containers. Whether we flatten further remains open to debate. Thanks, David -- 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
