Re: [Caml-list] Future of labels, and ideas for library labelling

[Claude Marche <Claude.Marche@lri.fr>]

>>>>> "Judicael" == Judicael Courant <Judicael.Courant@lri.fr> writes:

    >> To summarize recent posts by various people, there are two approaches
    >> for a universal mode:
    >> 
    >> * Take the label mode as a basis, and split libraries where needed to
    >> avoid troubling non-labellers.
    >> Labels, when present, are no longer optional.
    >> 
    Judicael> I would vote for this one.

I guess like many people reading this list, I'm very tired with this
thread. I definitely vote for this choice: when a function as been
defined with labels, it has to be called with labelled arguments. Does
it solve all incompatibility problems between classic and label mode ?
If yes, I vote twice!

I see a strong analogy between unlabelled/labelled arguments of
functions and tuples/records types: both are defining product types,
records are usually useful when there are a large numbers of
components, and when you do not want to remember the order of
them. And moreover the { r with ... } construct allows some kind of
default values in records. But could we imagine any useful application
to a record-like type where a record contains both labelled and
non-labelled fields?  I don't think so.

- Claude

-- 
| Claude Marché           | mailto:Claude.Marche@lri.fr |
| LRI - Bât. 490          | http://www.lri.fr/~marche/  |
| Université de Paris-Sud | phoneto: +33 1 69 15 64 85  |
| F-91405 ORSAY Cedex     | faxto: +33 1 69 15 65 86    |
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr