RE: Syntax for label, NEW SOLUTION

["Toby Moth" <tmoth@nortelnetworks.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2727 bytes --]

( sorry if this got posted twice )

I have kept out of the label debate as I haven't had a chance to really play
with 2.99
yet, have hardly ever used OLabl, and generally feel more optimistic about
what labels
might offer me than terrified about how Ocaml might suffer. 

So, I am just throwing an ill-cautioned suggestion when I say that it looks
to me
as if  Claudio is onto something.

Would it be possible to set up something along the lines:

MyModule:foo       need labels
MyModule.foo       labels checked if used

open MyModule:    needs labels
open MyModule     labels checked if used

Then the only case where you are committed is when you are inside a module
that you are actually writing using functions that you have just defined.
But if you are using labels inside your own module then surely you can't
object
to labels......
so surely you are happy with a label enforcing mode.

I suppose then that you would be able to write

Mod1.Mod2:foo
Mod1:Mod2:foo

and it would mean the same thing. Style would suggest that you use all ':'
or all '.'.

Is this impossible to implement ?


Toby Moth

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Claudio Sacerdoti Coen [SMTP:sacerdot@students.cs.unibo.it]
	Sent:	22 March 2000 18:15
	To:	caml-redistribution@pauillac.inria.fr
	Subject:	Re: Syntax for label, NEW SOLUTION

	On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 19:25:04 +0100, Christophe Raffalli wrote:
	> Ok, and I agree ! What I mean is that it could happend sooner if
there
	> was a mode that is conservetive over both modern and classic
modes. I
	> will give a first working answer ...

	There could be also another simple, backward compatible (w.r.t.
OCaml)
	solution that would get rid of the "labels in the library" fight.
	Only, I don't know if it is (semantically) feasible. Here it is:

	If I write

	 Moo.foo x a:y z;;

	or

	 open Moo;;
	 foo x a:y z;;

	or

	 let module M = Moo in
	  M.foo x a:y z;;

	than foo is label-checked as in classic mode.

	Instead, if I write 

	 open Moo in commutating mode;;  (* or something like that *)
	 foo x a:y z;;

	than foo is label-checked as in modern mode.

	So, for example, I could write

	open List;;
	open Unix as in moder mode.
	open Tk as in moder mode.

	What am I overlooking?

						C.S.C.

	-- 
	-----------------------------------------
	Real Name: Claudio Sacerdoti Coen
	Graduating students at the
	 Department of Computer Science,
	 university of Bologna
	Address: via del Colle n.6
		 S. Lazzaro di Savena (BO)
		 Italy
	e-mail:  sacerdot@cs.unibo.it
	-----------------------------------------



Toby Moth
Concorde Road, Norreys Drive, Maidenhead,
Berkshire SL6 4AG UK
Tel: +44 (0)1628 434301 Fax: +44 (0)1628 434875 Email:
tmoth@nortelnetworks.com

> NgRTEL NETWORKS
> 
> 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7215 bytes --]