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 RAA01054; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 17:07:06 +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 RAA01049 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 17:07:05 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mumnunah.cs.mu.OZ.AU (mail-gate.cs.mu.oz.au [198.142.254.221]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f39F6xf15472 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 17:07:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from hg.cs.mu.oz.au (root@hg.cs.mu.OZ.AU [128.250.25.19]) by mumnunah.cs.mu.OZ.AU with ESMTP id BAA18971; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 01:06:55 +1000 (EST) Received: (from fjh@localhost) by hg.cs.mu.oz.au (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) id BAA19799; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 01:06:54 +1000 Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 01:06:53 +1000 From: Fergus Henderson To: Jacques Garrigue Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Future of labels, and ideas for library labelling Message-ID: <20010410010653.A19738@hg.cs.mu.oz.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> <20010409182142V.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3i In-Reply-To: <20010409182142V.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On 09-Apr-2001, Jacques Garrigue wrote: > From: John Max Skaller > > > > 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. I think it would be nicer to keep the labels in the standard library, but allow the omission of explicit labels in calls (at least in cases where this is unambiguous), as in the current "classic" mode. Then those who wish to can use labels, and those who don't wish to don't have to. You could also have a "style-checking" compiler option to require labels in calls if the function is defined with labels. But unlike the current "-labels" option, this option should just restrict you to a subset of the language; it should not permit any programs that are not permitted with the default options. > 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. One problem with this approach is that it leads to mixing of different styles, since any given piece of code may contain calls to several different libraries, and with your proposed approach the style used in the caller is determined by how the callee is written. [Note: I haven't actually written any non-trivial OCaml programs. This is just my opinion based on experience with other languages.] -- Fergus Henderson | "I have always known that the pursuit | of excellence is a lethal habit" WWW: | -- the last words of T. S. Garp. ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr