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 QAA02259 for caml-redistribution@pauillac.inria.fr; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:51:35 +0100 (MET)
Resent-Message-Id: <200003241551.QAA02259@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 KAA17604 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 10:54:04 +0100 (MET)
Received: from air.irisa.fr (air.irisa.fr [131.254.60.130])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA07365
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 10:54:04 +0100 (MET)
Received: from parate.irisa.fr (parate.irisa.fr [131.254.12.25])
	by air.irisa.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20943;
	Fri, 24 Mar 2000 10:54:04 +0100 (MET)
Sender: David.Mentre@irisa.fr
To: Nicolas barnier <barnier@recherche.enac.fr>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: labels & ocaml 3 & co.
References: <20000315145830.22463@pauillac.inria.fr> <20000316115540L.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> <200003211651.RAA05461@sepia.recherche.enac.fr> <38D9FC7C.765BD264@recherche.enac.fr>
From: David.Mentre@irisa.fr (David=?iso-8859-1?q?_Mentr=E9?=)
Date: 24 Mar 2000 10:54:03 +0100
In-Reply-To: Nicolas barnier's message of "Thu, 23 Mar 2000 12:14:04 +0100"
Message-ID: <wd8wvmssngk.fsf_-_@parate.irisa.fr>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Resent-From: weis@pauillac.inria.fr
Resent-Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:51:35 +0100
Resent-To: caml-redistribution@pauillac.inria.fr

Nicolas barnier <barnier@recherche.enac.fr> writes:

> I'm quite tired with all this polemic.

so do I. 

> Moreover, two compile modes are not a very good idea for obvious
> portability reasons.

I agree.

> So I think we should switch to a single modern mode because labels in
> modern mode are useful and simple (at least in Labltk),

Agree.

> and withdraw labels in the standard library because they're often a
> pain (and the lib is small enough to learn without the need for
> labels).

Agree. But another proposal : why not use *only optional labels* in the
standard library?

Therefore :

- traditionnal (classic) caml users are not forced to use labels at all
  (even if they are available)

- label (modern) caml users can use them freely, with arguments
  commutativity and so on


> We would then keep labels an orthogonal improvment.

I think everybody agree on this (only? :-) point. 


Sincerely,
david
-- 
 David.Mentre@irisa.fr -- http://www.irisa.fr/prive/dmentre/
 Opinions expressed here are only mine.