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 OAA06927; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:53:26 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA06926 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:53:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ext.lri.fr (ext.lri.fr [129.175.15.4]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f2TCrO922188 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:53:24 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from pc87.lri.fr (IDENT:root@pc87 [129.175.8.106]) by ext.lri.fr (8.11.1/jtpda-5.3.2) with ESMTP id f2TCrNu03505 ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:53:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lri.fr (IDENT:jcourant@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pc87.lri.fr (8.9.3/jtpda-5.3.2) with ESMTP id OAA30511 ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:53:22 +0200 Message-ID: <3AC33042.94F387B@lri.fr> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:53:22 +0200 From: Judicael Courant X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [fr] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jacques Garrigue CC: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Future of labels References: <20010329094438J.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Hi, I am personnaly a classic-mode user, except when I play with some GUI libraries (which I have not much time to do). My wishes about labels are 1) If there are several modes, the default one should be compatible with ocaml 2.00 as I would prefer not to change my developments in Caml. On the contrary, whether the current semantics of label is preserved or not does not matter (for me at least). 2) There should be only one mode. I wish ocamlc has as few options as possible. 3) If you can write labels then you should be able to commute them in function application, otherwise there is little point in writing applications with labeled arguments: you have to remember both the order and the name of the arguments (though of course, it enhances the security the type-checker offers...) So, if I understand well, I would vote in favor of the solution your PS provides. [The following is probably off-topic and probably needs quite a lot of work to be put in O'Caml but we can expect miracles from the Caml team, can not we?] A wish about optionnal arguments: I would use them a lot if they where a bit more... optionnal, in the style of implicit parameters of http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/lewis00implicit.html. This would be really helpful when defining printers (where you have to carry everywhere the channel on which you are printing), when you are defining a type-checker (you must carry the current environment that is unchanged in all your rules but the one about lambda-abstraction, ...). Sincerly yours, Judicaël. -- Judicael.Courant@lri.fr, http://www.lri.fr/~jcourant/ (+33) (0)1 69 15 64 85 "Montre moi des morceaux de ton monde, et je te montrerai le mien" Tim, matricule #929, condamné ŕ mort. http://rozenn.picard.free.fr/tim.html ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr