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 NAA29266; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:22:04 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: (from fpottier@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id NAA29350; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:22:03 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:22:03 +0200 From: Francois Pottier To: Jacques Garrigue Cc: caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Future of labels Message-ID: <20010330132203.A29171@pauillac.inria.fr> Reply-To: Francois.Pottier@inria.fr References: <20010330120112L.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20010330120112L.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp>; from garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp on Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 12:01:12PM +0900 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Jacques, > To keep the discussion open, here is a 3rd alternative, which involves > making label mode the default mode, removing labels from the standard > library (to keep compatibility with ocaml 2, that's paramount), and > keeping a simplified classic mode for those who don't want to hear of > labels at all. > Would others enjoy moving to label mode at no cost (with libraries > compatible with 2.x) ? That is, would they be ready to write more labels > when they use labeled libraries (like labltk) ? This proposal sounds reasonable to me. But I'd support Judicaël and vote in favor of a single mode. If the designer of a particular library chose to include labels in its API, why should the user not comply? Who are the people who `don't want to hear of labels at all'? -- François Pottier Francois.Pottier@inria.fr http://pauillac.inria.fr/~fpottier/ ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr