From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.6.10/8.6.6) id LAA06268 for caml-redistribution; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 11:57:09 +0200
Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id DAA04048 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 03:29:31 +0200
Received: from netcomsv.netcom.com (uucp11.netcom.com [163.179.3.11]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id DAA00251 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 03:29:28 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: by netcomsv.netcom.com with UUCP (8.6.12/SMI-4.1)
	id SAA04650; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 18:22:19 -0700
Received: from owl.vlibs.com (owl.vlibs.com [192.149.105.6]) by pup.vlibs.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA03127 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 17:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from johnm@localhost) by owl.vlibs.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) id RAA11401; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 17:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 17:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199607230040.RAA11401@owl.vlibs.com>
From: John Gerard Malecki <johnm@vlibs.com>
To: caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Subject: Label Names Space - philosophy or implementation?
X-Organization: VLSI Libraries Incorporated
Sender: weis


A co-worker has (vehemently) pointed out to me that record label names
cannot be shared.  For example, the following fails

	type foo = { name : string; x : int }
	let    a = { name = "foo";  x = 1 }

	type bar = { name : string; y : float }
	let    b = { name = "bar";  y = 9. }

	let   a' = { name = "foo";  x = 2 }

With an error message on the last line that "The label x belongs to
the type foo but is here mixed with labels of type bar".  This annoys
my co-worker to no end.  He would like many of his records to have a
field with a standardized label.  This makes it easier for him to
write printers for his data-structure.  Does anyone have a
recommendation to make to him?

Until this morning I would have guessed that the type of a record was
not resolved until all of the labels were examined.  As I re-read the
caml-light and ocaml manuals I see that this is not true.

Are there good reasons for this "restriction"?  I can see how this
this might be considered a good software practice.  Maybe, due to
pattern matching, it is not possible to have shared labels.

Any comments?