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 QAA24330; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:02:29 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id QAA24350 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:02:29 +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 PAA23774 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:43:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mailhub12.isdnet.net (mailhub12.isdnet.net [195.154.100.19]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f33Dh2P09660 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:43:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from Samaris (ppp126-net1-idf2-bas1.isdnet.net [195.154.50.126]) by mailhub12.isdnet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA04878 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:43:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from (Kadath) [10.31.0.3] (mail) by Samaris with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 14kR5J-0003c9-00; Tue, 03 Apr 2001 15:43:01 +0200 Received: from fare by Kadath with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 14kR5I-0000DH-00; Tue, 03 Apr 2001 15:43:00 +0200 Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:43:00 +0200 From: Francois-Rene Rideau To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Future of labels, and ideas for library labelling Message-ID: <20010403154300.A808@ZhengHe.augustin.thierry> Reply-To: Francois-Rene Rideau Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <20010403105212.A15700@pauillac.inria.fr> Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Xavier Leroy, dans son post <20010403105212.A15700@pauillac.inria.fr> a écrit : > It's just too hard to maintain two versions of the same libraries. Couldn't camlp4 be put to good use to automatically extract an unlabelled standard library out of the labelled one? One library would either duplicate or wrap the other (working either on both .ml and .mli or only .mli files). Might be an interesting student project. I don't mean that this is forcibly the Right Thing(tm) to do, but at least, it's an option you might consider. Of course, if the automated unlabeller becomes rigged with subtleties and special cases, then indeed it might become a real bad idea (or it might require some special purpose .mli annotation language). Also, can you remind me what was the argument against having unlabelled arguments be translated into labelled arguments according to the declared order of arguments? e.g. "List.map func" being implicitly translated to "List.map ~f:func" because f is the first (available) label? I admit I haven't thought too much about the typing issues, but it looks "natural" to me. That's the way some existing languages behave, as we've been recently reminded, and it could solve the problem with unlabelled calls to labelled functions. Yours freely, [ François-René VB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] [ TUNES project for a Free Reflective Computing System | http://tunes.org ] Procrastination is great. It gives me a lot more time to do things that I'm never going to do. ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr