Dear Caml-list readers:
I have just read Jason Hickey's post of 3/6/2009 at the beginning of
this thread. Now that Jason has made this a public issue by trying it
in the court of public opinion I am forced to give a public response.
Jason's letter is false or misleading in important respects, as
Alexy -- thank you for the reply, I appreciate hearing your thoughts
on the situation. Before you completely make up your mind I would
like to offer some other perspectives to consider.
It's a given that Jason had more OCaml background and experience
than I did, especially at the beginning of
Coming back to the Hickey/Rentsch book(s), I feel deeply sad about
the mess that is unfolding on this list. I proofread a draft of Jason
Hickey's book, at his request, and found it very good and just what
the OCaml community is still missing: a well-written, English-language
book on
Caml-list readers,
I've now had an opportunity to catch up on the caml-list emails
over the last month or so, and review those relating to my book
The Objective Caml Programming Language. I see there's been a
lot a speculation about what happened. To help clear things up,
I've written a more
Programming Language is
derived from an earlier unpublished joint work by Jason Hickey and
Tim Rentsch; if you look in the Preface in Rentsch's book you will
see an attribution to this effect, mentioning Jason Hickey by name.
Dr. Hickey has been aware of plans to publish a separate book
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 00:24:39 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien?= Hinderer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is there a (clean) way to define simultaneously a class and a type that
are mutually recursive ?
Something like this :
class element (c : content) =
object
...
end and type
