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 NAA02237; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:22:24 +0100 (MET) 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 NAA31997 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:22:22 +0100 (MET) Received: from favie.faith.gr.jp (favie.faith.gr.jp [61.127.175.250]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g15CMK913187 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:22:21 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (dhcp7.faith.gr.jp [192.168.1.17]) by favie.faith.gr.jp (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA26604; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 21:22:10 +0900 To: dbmcclain@email.msn.com Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Syntax Changes in OCaml In-Reply-To: <001701c1add4$f5098b80$210148bf@dylan> References: <001701c1add4$f5098b80$210148bf@dylan> 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: <20020205212207K.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 21:22:07 +0900 From: Jacques Garrigue X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk From: "dbmcclain" > I had the distinct impression that the latest release of OCaml already > imposes a (minor) syntax change in that tags on library function arguments > are now mandatory. Is this not the case? It is not a syntax change (the grammar didn't change), but a typechecker change, which only concerns people who use labels. (We hoped they were flexible enough to accept this integrating change.) Labels are required in some cases, but there are no labels in the standard library. > My (mis?)understanding has already prevented my adoption of the latest > version simply because of the effort required to port 20 KLOC of OCaml to > this new imposition. If this is not the case, then I will gladly incorporate > the newest version in my system. Indeed this is a misunderstanding: ocaml 3.04 is fully compatible with ocaml 2.04. Non-labeled programs do not require any change. (Actually, there is one change in the grammar for stream parsers, and you have to use camlp4 for them, but this is really all.) Keep with us, Jacques Garrigue ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr