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

[Sylvain Le Gall]

2013/2/26 Yaron Minsky <yminsky at janestreet.com>:
> Not to pile on, but I think voting is a terrible idea.  I can't
> imagine Xavier paying any attention to the results of such a poll, nor
> should he.  The currency we need here is thoughtful designs and
> arguments, not head-counts.
>

As said before, I give up. No voting. That was just an idea (which has
made a lot of people react -- at least it defines what people don't
want).

Although, we should consider adopting a kind of framework like DEP
(http://dep.debian.net/), which can bring stricter rules and better
view on this kind of discussion (and a website to publish the kind of
roundups Gabriel has done).

As mentionned before, this was more about getting an actionnable item
than convincing Xavier. I agree with you that voting is not of
particular interest in this case.

> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:26 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> Platform mailing list
>> Platform at lists.ocaml.org
>> http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/platform