batteries-included VS fslang-suggestions

Here's a straight example: I've searched for a list of "awesome" OCaml libraries, chose "Batteries Included" which is apparently a widely-used OCaml library, and navigated to its source code on GitHub. Here's a random file:

Batteries Included got its implementation of Seq back in 2009: https://github.com/ocaml-batteries-team/batteries-included/commit/d67bfc69c79caa6b712ada4af0c6df604fb823b4

Another example is imperative control flow. OCaml and SML only have basic loops, they don't have returns, breaks, continues. You can simulate them with exceptions, even in a generic way if you use some higher-order functions. Getting good performance for these kind of returns would rely on inlining this function and optimizing local exceptions, which OCaml probably doesn't do as of now.

Trying to extend this https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-suggestions/issues/1089 to have two generics:

Basically, what I've made in Spiral. There is even a F# issue to improve the syntax.

Not currently supported but it's an open language suggestion that's likely to end up in F#. https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-suggestions/issues/506

Re: the argument accessor shorthand, there seems to be a proposal for exactly that (using _ instead of &): https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-suggestions/issues/506#issu...

I found this post (https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-suggestions/issues/975) which is about the same thing, but I'm confused as to what the final resolution was. There was mention of a taskSeq, but I can't find much info on that.

An issue in FSharp suggestions

F# doesn’t currently seem to support source generators.

"Blessed" literals: only FSharp.List and System.Array have a built-in collection syntax in the language ([ ] and [| |]). Only FSharp.List has a special pattern matching constructor (::). The language itself shouldn't favor a particular type over another: it should be possible, at the library level, to write the same code but using different collection types (related discussion here).

I mostly write F# so I can only speak for F#, but if you want you can create a module which extends Seq to add the OCaml names. I suspect the same is possible in OCaml. The authors are not trying to impede compatibility, but compatibility is not a goal. If you value compatibility, or adhering to ML norms, and you use F#, I recommend you (kindly) advocate for it in relevant issues on the F# language discussion repo. https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-suggestions/issues