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

[Gabriel Scherer]

I'm sorry if you feel the discussion is unproductive or distracts
attention from other important issues related to the OCaml platform.
I, for one, am glad that a discussion of this design question is done
in the open for the first time -- at the price, indeed, of some
lengths of text, but I didn't feel the signal/noise ratio was that
bad.

I'm not sure "voting" on something is the right way to go, as it would
have little actual weight when it comes to convincing the actual
language maintainers to implement or integrate changes, or the people
having specific needs (JaneStreet, or Alain) that their needs will be
respected by the course of events. We could have an opinion poll, but
we already have access to the opinions expressed so far (out of
memory: Leo, Anil and Yaron have a rather precise hierarchical
proposal, Alain wishes to avoid tooling changes, and other people that
have been less involved so far vary between mild interest and strong
doubts that proposed changes tackle the problem in the right
direction).

I feel there is space left for valuable ideas and technical
contributions, by Daniel and Cristophe for example. If there is a
feeling that this is too noisy and drowns other -platform discussion,
I'm ready to take it to another discussion channel (but I would
personally appreciate public archives to be available).

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Sylvain Le Gall
<sylvain+ocaml at le-gall.net> wrote:
> 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