Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
RE: Syntax for label, NEW PROPOSAL
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2000-03-21 (14:15)
From: Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@k...>
Subject: Re: Syntax for label, NEW PROPOSAL
From: Dave Mason <dmason@sarg.Ryerson.CA>

> 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).

You have a very good point. In fact -modern was chosen arbitrarily
when integrating olabl code in ocaml, and was to be changed
before the release.  It might have avoided some confusions.

-labels would be OK. I just avoided it because it seemed to imply that
one couldn't use labels in classic mode, which is not true.

In my opinion -strict or -pedantic would be wrong: this is not the
intended meaning.

> 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.

This is the intended behaviour. If you have problems in accessing
those APIs in classic mode, then this means something should be done
about it in the API. The implementor of a labelled library may not
realise that one parameter order is not so nice, just because he
doesn't care about it.

For instance, if you use LablTk in classic mode, you will have to put
the widget as last parameter in most functions. If you feel this is
weird, then you should report the inconvenience.

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

There are no plans to change this.
At least a consensus would be needed.