caml-list - the Caml user's mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jacques Garrigue <Jacques.Garrigue@inria.fr>
To: bpr@best.com
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: How do I ..
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 18:39:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <19991221183930G.garrigue@pauillac.inria.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:16:43 -0800 (PST)" <Pine.BSF.4.21.9912201150040.15835-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>

From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@best.com>

> > As to the existence of two modes, I expect it to stay around for a bit
> > longer.
> > 
> > Clearly, there are supporters for both styles. Those who may like to
> > put some labels in their interfaces, but do not want to have to put
> > labels in every line of code, and those who value the extra expressive
> > power of doing so.
> 
> I understand that people will have different preferences, but supporting
> two syntaxes has severe disadvantages. As an interim approach it is OK but 
> it will be harder for beginners and may split the users development
> efforts. I understand the arguments for both styles, so I haven't yet
> decided what I'll do. Since I'm pretty tolerant of verbosity (Ada user:-) 
> I'll probably try to exclusively use the modern mode.

While I agree with you that the current situation may be a bit
disturbing for beginners (they will probably choose the style they are
taught), it is not true that efforts are splitted. This was the point
in merging. The two styles are completely compatible, and in a same
project the two styles may be combined freely, on a file unit
(directory, with makefiles). This last approach is not encouraged, but
this is possible. 

If you are not yet fixed on the style you will choose, then I can only
encourage your choosing modern mode.  My personal point of view, as I
proposed it with olabl, is that writing more labels costs nothing, and
that commutation (or rather the irrelevance of the order) of arguments
is a real plus.

Concerning future, if at some point there appears a consensus that the
modern mode is better, then it would be possible to switch things the
other way round, modern mode being the default, and classic mode being
left for legacy software and irreducibles. But currently compatibility
seems to matter more.

        Jacques
------------------------------------------------------
Jacques Garrigue, visiting INRIA from Kyoto University
		          Jacques.Garrigue at inria.fr




  reply	other threads:[~1999-12-21 21:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
1999-12-18  7:02 skaller
1999-12-18 17:59 ` Brian Rogoff
1999-12-20 11:06   ` Jacques Garrigue
1999-12-20 20:16     ` Brian Rogoff
1999-12-21 17:39       ` Jacques Garrigue [this message]
1999-12-18 18:09 ` David Brown
1999-12-18 17:41 Juergen Pfitzenmaier

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=19991221183930G.garrigue@pauillac.inria.fr \
    --to=jacques.garrigue@inria.fr \
    --cc=bpr@best.com \
    --cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).