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 QAA24868; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:12:54 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 QAA24817 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:12:53 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from verdot.inria.fr (verdot.inria.fr [128.93.11.7]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f33ECqf13620 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:12:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from ddr@localhost) by verdot.inria.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA18405 for caml-list@inria.fr; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:12:52 +0200 Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:12:52 +0200 From: Daniel de Rauglaudre To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Future of labels, and ideas for library labelling Message-ID: <20010403161252.I9381@verdot.inria.fr> References: <20010403105212.A15700@pauillac.inria.fr> <20010403185448J.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> <15049.51482.197252.672850@pc803> <20010403230626W.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0us In-Reply-To: <20010403230626W.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp>; from garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp on Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 11:06:26PM +0900 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk May I ask a question? What is exactly the problem of having just one mode: labels being optional *and* commutation mode? What is the problem, exactly? 1. if there are no labels, then the order is the order 2. if there are labels, then the parameters are indicated by the labels Where is the problem? Could you give us examples? -- Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/ ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr