From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: weis Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id PAA28164 for caml-redistribution@pauillac.inria.fr; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 15:05:34 +0200 (MET DST) Resent-Message-Id: <200004061305.PAA28164@pauillac.inria.fr> 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 KAA04570 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:03:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from julie.univ-savoie.fr (univax.univ-savoie.fr [193.48.120.32]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA28738 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 10:03:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from univ-savoie.fr (lama-d134.univ-savoie.fr [193.48.123.134]) by julie.univ-savoie.fr (8.9.3/jtpda-5.3.3) with ESMTP id JAA41232 ; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 09:57:38 +0200 (CEST) Sender: raffalli@univ-savoie.fr Message-ID: <38E84EF2.7C53C099@univ-savoie.fr> Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 09:57:38 +0200 From: Christophe Raffalli Organization: Laboratoire de =?iso-8859-1?Q?Math=E9matiques?=, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Universit=E9?= de Savoie X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [fr] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14-15mdksmp i686) X-Accept-Language: fr, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jacques Garrigue CC: skaller@maxtal.com.au, caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: backward compatibility References: <38E320D2.6F67964C@maxtal.com.au> <20000331133429V.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-From: weis@pauillac.inria.fr Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 15:05:34 +0200 Resent-To: caml-redistribution@pauillac.inria.fr > Now the answer is very short: you cannot provide simultaneously (in > the same mode) > 1) backward compatibility > 2) commutation of (non-optional) labels > 3) labels as documentation (that is, anywhere you feel like putting them) 1) has never been a requirement from me as a user or from the Caml team. Caml-light and ocaml are not compatible Ocaml had also incompatible change not to speak about the difference between Caml (the old one) and Caml-Light ! I really think 1) is a VERY VERY BAD idea ! OCaml is a reasearch language that is also really usable. But I want it to progress toward an always better language. So 1) is not a reasonable constraint. The only questions are: - How hard is to port your code ? - Can it be done automatically ? So if an improvement is worth it add it to OCaml regardless of backward compatibility ! -- Christophe Raffalli Université de Savoie Batiment Le Chablais, bureau 21 73376 Le Bourget-du-Lac Cedex tél: (33) 4 79 75 81 03 fax: (33) 4 79 75 87 42 mail: Christophe.Raffalli@univ-savoie.fr www: http://www.lama.univ-savoie.fr/~RAFFALLI