[MLton] SML documentation tool(s)

Mon, 20 Jun 2005 10:14:36 +0200

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C57570.18DCA79D
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Stephen Weeks wrote: 

> I am not so interested in the following:
[...] 
>  * portability across SML implementations (too hard)

I guess you have a good cause to say this, but in some cases I don't see the
hardness here. For example, what kind of incompatibility is met when
developing a red-black tree implementation? Of course, when doing something
more system specific, I can imagine the difficulties.

One more thing comes to my mind that is just slightly related to this: when
to write an ML library and when to make an ML binding for an existing C
library? For some reasons we better trust(?) and are keen on an ML
implementation but in the case of a mature C one we should not reinvent the
wheel (see gmp as an example). What are the good arguments for choosing one
over the other?

Another thing: other than arguing about the documentation we could collect
the ideas what libraries would we like to have. A Wiki page seems natural to
this. I guess it's worth putting on the main page but some people might
disagree here, so let's discuss it. My first idea that we could come up with
a library that we actually use during the process of writing libraries and
is not handled well by available open-source software. That would have a
user base and would serve as a testbed on library development. Parts of
Stephen's package management system could be that. By the way I see an
autoconf coming here >:->

- Gergely

------_=_NextPart_001_01C57570.18DCA79D
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2658.24">
<TITLE>RE: [MLton] SML documentation tool(s)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Stephen Weeks wrote: </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; I am not so interested in the following:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>[...] </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;&nbsp; * portability across SML implementations =
(too hard)</FONT>
</P>

I guess you have a good cause to say this, but in =
some cases I don't see the hardness here. For example, what kind of =
incompatibility is met when developing a red-black tree implementation? =
Of course, when doing something more system specific, I can imagine the =
difficulties.

One more thing comes to my mind that is just slightly =
related to this: when to write an ML library and when to make an ML =
binding for an existing C library? For some reasons we better trust(?) =
and are keen on an ML implementation but in the case of a mature C one =
we should not reinvent the wheel (see gmp as an example). What are the =
good arguments for choosing one over the other?

Another thing: other than arguing about the =
documentation we could collect the ideas what libraries would we like =
to have. A Wiki page seems natural to this. I guess it's worth putting =
on the main page but some people might disagree here, so let's discuss =
it. My first idea that we could come up with a library that we actually =
use during the process of writing libraries and is not handled well by =
available open-source software. That would have a user base and would =
serve as a testbed on library development. Parts of Stephen's package =
management system could be that. By the way I see an autoconf coming =
here &gt;:-&gt;

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>- Gergely</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C57570.18DCA79D--