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 TAA00305 for caml-redistribution@pauillac.inria.fr; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:16:36 +0200 (MET DST) Resent-Message-Id: <200003271716.TAA00305@pauillac.inria.fr> 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 PAA21475 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 15:46:25 +0100 (MET) Received: from tobago.inria.fr (tobago.inria.fr [128.93.8.21]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA01300 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 15:46:25 +0100 (MET) Received: (from doligez@localhost) by tobago.inria.fr (8.6.10/8.6.6) id PAA23550 for caml-list@inria.fr; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 15:46:24 +0100 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 15:46:24 +0100 From: Damien Doligez Message-Id: <200003251446.PAA23550@tobago.inria.fr> To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: to have labels or not Resent-From: weis@pauillac.inria.fr Resent-Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:16:36 +0200 Resent-To: caml-redistribution@pauillac.inria.fr >From: Jacques Garrigue >The only weakness of this approach is if you copy some code from a >file in classic mode to one in commuting label mode (or reverse). >Then you have to add/remove labels by hand. But then this is also a >way to understand the code better :-) I know that Jacques is perfectly aware of it, but I think it's good to stress this point: Even the above is not entirely true. If you suspect you'll have to change modes, you can write code that works in both modes, simply by giving all labels in the right order in every function application. It's even reasonable to write all your code in this fashion. And if you didn't do it in advance: to go from classic to commuting label mode, add the labels. To go from commuting label to classic mode, don't remove the labels but put the function arguments back in the right order. In either case, the resulting code works in both modes and you'll never need to change it again. -- Damien