From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id TAA13052 for caml-redistribution@pauillac.inria.fr; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:52:56 +0100 (MET) Resent-Message-Id: <200003171852.TAA13052@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 SAA22345 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:35:21 +0100 (MET) Received: from sarg.Ryerson.CA (sarg.Ryerson.CA [141.117.18.117]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA21856 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:35:16 +0100 (MET) Received: from sarg.Ryerson.CA (dmason@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sarg.Ryerson.CA (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA28829; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:34:31 -0500 Message-Id: <200003171734.MAA28829@sarg.Ryerson.CA> To: Jacques Garrigue cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: Syntax for label, NEW PROPOSAL In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:48:40 +0900." <20000317184840K.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:34:31 -0500 From: Dave Mason Resent-From: weis@pauillac.inria.fr Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 19:52:55 +0100 Resent-To: caml-redistribution@pauillac.inria.fr >>>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:48:40 +0900, Jacques Garrigue 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