Hi Benedikt, You're right, we should make this kind of decision. For the moment, we are focusing on different issues (e.g. standardising I/O, enumerations, module names, etc), in an effort to obtain a base relatively fast, something which could be tested both with existing code and new applications. It is our hope that this will yield enough interest for people to comment and discuss policies regarding exceptions, labels, etc.
Cheers, David On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 11:00 +0000, Benedikt Grundmann wrote: > Somehow I forgot reply back when you posted this reply. And I was just > reminded when I read this: > > "Batteries is meant to serve the following purposes: > [snip] > provide consistent abstractions and APIs for otherwise independent libraries. > " > > on > > http://wiki.cocan.org/events/europe/ocamlmeetinggrenoble2009 > > How can you expect to provide consistent abstractions if you are > not willing to make those decisions? > > Cheers, > > Bene -- David Teller-Rajchenbach Security of Distributed Systems http://www.univ-orleans.fr/lifo/Members/David.Teller Latest News of French Research: System being liquidated. Researchers angry. _______________________________________________ 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
