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 JAA16373; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:42:55 +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 JAA16369 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:42:51 +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 f3A7gjb14000 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:42:49 +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 f3A7gfu13758 ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:42:41 +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 JAA28750 ; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:42:40 +0200 Message-ID: <3AD2B970.BEB88A8@lri.fr> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:42:40 +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, and ideas for library labelling References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010402232928.00d3b180@shell16.ba.best.com> <3AD16EBE.831E8DD@ozemail.com.au> <4.3.2.7.2.20010409124220.00d4a810@shell16.ba.best.com> <20010410123756H.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, Jacques Garrigue a écrit : > > [ Disclaimer: you can safely skip this message if you are not > interested in labels. It is about modalities of use for people who > want them. ] > > To summarize recent posts by various people, there are two approaches > for a universal mode: > > * Take the label mode as a basis, and split libraries where needed to > avoid troubling non-labellers. > Labels, when present, are no longer optional. > I would vote for this one. > * Extend classic mode with commutation, and keep labels in libraries. > Labels are kept optional. The problem with this one is that if you choose to use labels, nothing (at least for the moment) prevents you to write code in an inconsistent style (putting labels at some places and forgetting them at some others). > > So, is there no way out? > Not completely, if we accept to start from strict unification: [...] I can not really assess if this solution is good. However, it sounds to me like a hack. I am rather suspicious of hack, be they clever as long as they are not proven harmless (through a metatheoretical study). What are the chances then that we experience bad behaviours of this hack because of a lack of good theoretical properties? 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 à mort. http://rozenn.picard.free.fr/tim.html ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr