Re: [Caml-list] Future of labels, and ideas for library labelling

[Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp>]

From: John Max Skaller <skaller@ozemail.com.au>
>
> 	I beg to differ. The current status is the result
> of an incomplete merger of two communities, who have agreed
> to use a common tool (ocaml with two modes) to unify the
> ocaml development environment and provide a vehicle for
> experiments leading to further unification of the language.
> 
> 	The next step is surely to further unify our efforts,
> by eliminating the duality in the languages that shared tool
> processes. It is OK, IMHO, to introduce a duality in 
> the libraries to do this. Now the theoreticians and implementors
> can focus their attention better.

I think your analysis is correct here.
Note that I indeed started this discussion because the classic mode
had a theoretical problem: maintaining two modes with their technical
subtleties can become cumbersome.

Also, there is some room left to make the label mode more
user-friendly, like allowing you to omit labels in some unambiguous
cases.

> 	The next step is to eliminate the duality in the libraries.
> This will probably require some cleanups in the core language,
> as well as some willingness for users to migrate.

Well, after listening to reactions, I think this next step first means
reducing the number of duplicated labelized libraries, by admitting
that we don't need labels in all libraries: Objective Label tried to
offer a unified view with labels everywhere, but this is not practical
with OCaml.  In particular, traditional OCaml users are not willing to
migrate.

Then, further integration will only happen by natural adaptation:
the standard library will stay without labels, but outside of that
people choose the library whose design they like, be it with or
without labels.  This is no longer a problem of being in one or the
other community.

> 	It is likely there will be a further cleanup.
> So we have done step 1 of a four (4) step process.

I'm not sure I follow you here: step 2 is clean-up of the semantics,
step 3 is partial clean-up of the libraries (the remaining part being
really a problem of taste). I do not see what is left to clean-up
then: user libraries are designed by user themselves, we cannot edict
design directives for them.

Anyway, I agree with you: it may be time to do some clean up after the
merger, and this would improve the usability of the language.

Cheers,

Jacques Garrigue
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr