On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:46:24 +0100 "Paolo Donadeo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Couldn't we take inspiration from the Python standard library [1]? > Python hasn't namespace but is provided with a module system similar > to OCaml *and* the standard library is really impressive. > > And nobody can say Python is a bureaucratic language like Java :-) > > > [1] http://www.python.org/doc/2.5.2/lib/lib.html Hello, I think a hierarchy in the documentation is very useful: it helps beginners understand the big picture about all available modules and help developers find the functions they look for. But in the code, I think it is really more convenient to only have one level of "standard" modules. By the way, I, too, always prefix idents with the module they come from, (like in List.length) and only "open" a module to use fields and constructors, so using Data.Containers.List.length or whatever is longer than "List.length" is not an option. Having a shortcut "List" for Data.Containers.List does not convince me, because the problem will remain with modules with no shortcut. So hierarchy in documentation: yes; in the code: no. Regards, -- Maxence Guesdon http://yquem.inria.fr/~guesdon/ Service Expérimentation et Développements https://devel.inria.fr/rocq/ INRIA Paris-Rocquencourt http://www.inria.fr/rocquencourt/ _______________________________________________ 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
