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 QAA16924; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:09:15 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id QAA16738 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:09:14 +0200 (MET DST) 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 PAA14297 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:14:53 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from morgon.inria.fr (morgon.inria.fr [128.93.8.33]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f3BDEkD29880; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:14:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from remy@localhost) by morgon.inria.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA09706; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:16:18 +0200 To: Jacques Garrigue Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Future of labels, and ideas for library labelling References: <20010410123756H.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> <20010411172919K.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> From: Didier Remy Date: 11 Apr 2001 15:16:16 +0200 In-Reply-To: Jacques Garrigue's message of "Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:29:19 +0900" Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Jacques Garrigue writes: Salut Jacques, I am not sure I understand all your conclusions: > Here is a summary of the plan I tried to draw from many people's > contributions (and my own experience and convictions :-)): > > * remove labels from standard libraries > * make label mode the default (and practically unique) mode; > this preserves compatibility with ocaml 2.x So far, I understand. > * SLIGHTLY extend it to allow non-labelled complete applications of > functions: this is non-ambiguous, but keep a warning for PURISTS, > and also because of the SLIGHT MISMATCH between PROGRAM TEXT and > UNTYPED SEMANTICS I do not understand much of this sentence. Moreover, I am a bit worried by the use of the words I've emphasized. > * put some labels in alternative versions of a few libraries > (List, Array, Unix). Access to these libraries would use already > existing ways: "open Stdlabels", "module Unix = Lunix" > * also add alternative labelled versions for the few functions with > more than 4 arguments in the standard library (e.g. String.blit') Since these two points are the same, that is, provide alternative labeled versions of some functions, could they be solved in the same way (introduce a prime version of module M v.s. introduction primed definitions of identifier f), so as to avoid dupplicating conventions. Also, before you chose names for the primed modules, can you find a uniform convention (c.f. Stdlabels and Lunix that you keep using in examples). Or, could these modules have the same name but be defined in a subdirectory of the stdlib? Cheers, Didier ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr