From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: weis Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id WAA21373 for caml-redistribution; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:19:35 +0100 (MET) Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA19034 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 18:39:35 +0100 (MET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA15209; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 18:39:31 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (riesling.inria.fr [128.93.8.51]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA30897; Tue, 21 Dec 1999 18:39:30 +0100 (MET) To: bpr@best.com Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: How do I .. Reply-To: Jacques.Garrigue@inria.fr In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:16:43 -0800 (PST)" References: X-Mailer: Mew version 1.93 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.0 (HANANOEN) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <19991221183930G.garrigue@pauillac.inria.fr> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 18:39:30 +0100 From: Jacques Garrigue X-Dispatcher: imput version 980905(IM100) Sender: weis From: Brian Rogoff > > 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