nts/europe/ocamlmeetinggrenoble2009
How can you expect to provide consistent abstractions if you are
not willing to make those decisions?
Cheers,
Bene
2008/11/18 David Teller :
> Ok, that's an interesting point. Now, we just need to all agree on one
> standard :)
>
> On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 12:2
I would even go so far as to say that
One of the advantages of OCaml's current development model is
that it is not changing the language very quickly.
OCaml is already a big language (featurer/syntax and so on wise),
it should (IMHO) not grow a lot more at least not without giving
each change a l
Hi list,
I stumbled across something which I believe to be a bug in the ocaml
module type language:
Objective Caml version 3.11.0
# module type S = sig val foo : string -> string -> int val bar :
string -> string end;;
module type S =
sig val foo : string -> string -> int val bar : st
core's (http://ocaml.janestreet.com/?q=node/13) Date.t and TZ.t
also contain lots of functions that help dealing with dates.
On 3 November 2010 14:43, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 03-11-2010, Gregory Bellier wrote:
>>
>> What's the point to rely on another lib while the standard lib U
