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

[Sylvain Le Gall]

2013/2/26 Gabriel Scherer <gabriel.scherer at gmail.com>:
> 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.

The quality of the discussion is good, no problem.

Let me try to explain my POV:
1. are namespaces a mandatory/specific point of the OCaml platform (v1)
2. if not a mandatory step: let build the platform v1 and care about
this point later (i.e. when it will be in the compiler)
3. if not specific to platform: caml-list will be a better place to discuss this

I am not trying to imply that it is non-productive or whatever, I just
want to focus on what is needed for the OCaml platform. If people feel
this is mandatory, feel free to continue this discussion and ACK that
it is required for ocaml platform. I just want to be sure that
everyone thinks this is required.

IMHO, I think this is not mandatory and I would have expect that the
first thread on platform list would be "what packages to choose for
v1" or "what are the targets arch" or "what is the deadline" or "what
is the policy for including a package in the ocaml-platform". Having
discussion that "at best" will postpone OCaml platform v1 until
namespaces are implemented, is somehow problematic...

The SUCCESS of the ocaml-platform is to deliver something in a few months.

>
> 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).
>

Voting is just a quick way to come with an actionnable item. I care
about delivering something in the near future. If there is no obvious
good choice (which seems to be the case), we should postpone. It will
give time to think about the issue.

> 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