Till Varoquaux <t...@pps.jussieu.fr> a écrit :
As for forward compatibility (ie programs coded with 3.12 in mind might not compile with 3.10) this is a price I am happy to pay in order to have a language that's constantly improving. I think that this is feeling that is shared by many.
ok all, it has to be considered as forward compatibility, speaking at ocaml point-of-view, this POV is likely the one most of you have. However, at source POV (where OCaml is seen as a tool), this can be seen as backward compatibility: the source code we write could be backward compatible with older versions of OCaml. Anyway, I will stop here the terminology fight and use your POV...
And, last but nor least, older does not necessarily mean more stable.
...and I won't feed the troll too.
You seem to use those interchangeably in your mail. Windows 3.11 is old...
This specific ( { ; _} ) forward compatibility with ocaml <3.12 is possible for a little cost. It's just about removing the extra underscore characters. Anyway if the preprocessing script does not come out of the ocaml 3.12 box, I will have to do it. Other developers may have to so as well. Mainly because this coverage check is a must-do and because I do not want to force a general update to OCaml 3.12 when that can be avoided. The coverage check has to be done only once, at "developer's" side, using 3.12. Once the changes are done, stripped code can easily be compiled using older versions of OCaml, at "user's" side.
- Florent _______________________________________________ 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
