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 LAA22828; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:21:50 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 LAA22824 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:21:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp [130.54.16.1]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f399Llf09801 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:21:48 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (mikan.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp [130.54.16.202]) by kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (8.9.3/3.7W) with ESMTP id SAA03629; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 18:21:42 +0900 (JST) To: skaller@ozemail.com.au Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Future of labels, and ideas for library labelling In-Reply-To: <3AD16EBE.831E8DD@ozemail.com.au> References: <20010402123958K.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> <4.3.2.7.2.20010402232928.00d3b180@shell16.ba.best.com> <3AD16EBE.831E8DD@ozemail.com.au> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.7 / Mule 4.0 (HANANOEN) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010409182142V.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 18:21:42 +0900 From: Jacques Garrigue X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk From: John Max Skaller > > 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