Re: Syntax for label, NEW PROPOSAL

[Dave Mason <dmason@sarg.Ryerson.CA>]

>>>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:48:40 +0900, Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> said:

> Having seen a number of recent messages against having labels in the
> standard library, I have the feeling that there is a lot of
> confusion here, and I would like to make a few points clear.

> * In default (classic) mode, writing labels is (and will stay) not
> required. For those users that do not like labels, or do not want to
>[...]

> * What we are discussing about is modern mode. This is not pedantic
> mode, this is just another typing discipline. This basically doesn't
> concern people who are not very fond of labels, and will be
> perfectly happy with classic mode.

I have been following this discussion somewhat remotely.  I've not
been able to do much programming lately, and almost no OCAML (I have
dabbled with Olabl a few times).  From what I can see:

1) please do not call it ``modern'' mode.  Call it ``label'' mode.
   The word modern has baggage attached to it.  Other words that would
   be as good but also have (somewhat different) baggage include:
   different, changed, messed-up, experimental...  My point is that we
   should use a word that is not ``good'' or ``bad'', and calling it
   ``label'' mode seems best.  I have no opinion on what ``classic''
   mode should be called, although I think ``classic'' is fine (there
   is a little baggage, but it is split between has-withstood-the-
   test-of-time and old-fashioned, so is fairly neutral overall).

2) I do not expect to use label mode very frequently, except when
   dealing with ugly APIs (typically ones imported from some outside
   world, such as Tk).  If I can, in classic mode, program as I always
   have done, and access these APIs, but otherwise ignore labels
   (especially in the standard libraries!), I will be happy.

3) I hope classic mode will remain the default for a *long* time.

../Dave