From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id PAA14923; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:53:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id PAA14913 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:53:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA18226 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:46:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ext.lri.fr (ext.lri.fr [129.175.15.4]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f3A8kQn02974 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:46:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from sun-demons.lri.fr (sun-demons [129.175.8.90]) by ext.lri.fr (8.11.1/jtpda-5.3.2) with ESMTP id f3A8kHu15934 ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:46:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from (marche@localhost) by sun-demons.lri.fr (8.9.3/jtpda-5.3.2) id KAA05850 ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:46:15 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: sun-demons.lri.fr: marche set sender to Claude.Marche@lri.fr using -f From: Claude Marche MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <15058.51287.829349.768975@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:46:15 +0200 To: Judicael Courant Cc: Jacques Garrigue , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Future of labels, and ideas for library labelling In-Reply-To: <3AD2B970.BEB88A8@lri.fr> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010402232928.00d3b180@shell16.ba.best.com> <3AD16EBE.831E8DD@ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.2.20010409124220.00d4a810@shell16.ba.best.com> <20010410123756H.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> <3AD2B970.BEB88A8@lri.fr> X-Mailer: VM 6.90 under Emacs 20.7.1 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk >>>>> "Judicael" == Judicael Courant 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