Simon Cruanes

I like `with_locked` but if we want consistency with the stdlib, I still think that the `with_open_bin` and `with_open_gen` indicate that it's more on the "operation" side?

`Mutex.with_critical_section` :upside_down_face:

Honestly I don't think any option was convincingly better than `with_locked`. Asking the community will just bring more bikeshedding in :p .

I've tried `dune exec -- example/ounit/QCheck_ounit_test.exe -output-junit-file foo.xml -verbose true` but I'm not sure what exactly to look at, or how to find the escape sequences in the xml file....

fwiw I'm all for new, more consistent names, especially in `QCheck2`, as long as old names are present in `QCheck` (possibly with a deprecation tag :slightly_smiling_face: )

:+1: I noticed the same thing last week :)

I haven't thought about it either, but the main difficulty is that the whole of `Test` would have to live in a monad, I think (since running a test case...

I think it's important to provide escape hatches if people need to write custom generators; why is it bad to expose a builder for `Tree.t` if we keep the type...

Well I'd expose a `make_primitive : (random_state -> 'a tree) -> 'a gen` :p

Ok, so: - for a start, I'm not sure we'll ever move _away_ from `Random.State.t`, not if we want to keep some compatibility. Here again we may have some internal...