[ocaml-platform] Fwd: Is this mandatory to continue this discussion [was: on the need and design of OCaml namespaces]

[Sylvain Le Gall]

As you started this discussion and you write a nice summary in your
last email, can you setup a vote form?

The most simple way is to use a Google Form. If you don't feel
confident, send me the text of each proposal (like the proposals I
write in the forwarded email) + link to your summary + relevant post
(a la weekly ocaml news) and I will setup a form for you.

I think it would be even better that all proposal get an implementor
name attached to it, so we know who will be in charge of the next
action...

Regards
Sylvain



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alain Frisch <alain.frisch at lexifi.com>
Date: 2013/2/26
Subject: Re: [ocaml-platform] Is this mandatory to continue this
discussion [was: on the need and design of OCaml namespaces]
To: Sylvain Le Gall <sylvain+ocaml at le-gall.net>
Cc : Wojciech Meyer <wojciech.meyer at gmail.com>, Didier Remy
<didier.remy at inria.fr>, "platform at lists.ocaml.org"
<platform at lists.ocaml.org>


On 02/26/2013 01:11 AM, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
>
> My 2nd take on this:
> Put this to vote !
> With the following proposals:
> A. Implement rich namespace
> B. Implement simple flat namespace
> C. Fix -pack issue rather than implementing namespace
> D. Postpone discussion


E. Advertize a naming convention for modules to avoid clashes, and
provide very light support in the language/compiler/tools to reduce
the syntactic overhead of using long names for users of "standard
libraries".


Alain