Markus Mottl wrote:

> So I really do not understand the point of the quarrel on labels here -

There's no quarrel. Instead it is 'give people an inch and they want a
mile'.

Instead of two languages, ocaml and olabl, we now have one language with
two
modes. This is much better for the compiler developers, and classic mode
ocaml users have some benefits, but the olabl system is somewhat
compromised.
So now, we want something better: a _single_ language, not two variants.

The arguments about the standard library seem to me to be this: some of
the
ocaml (classic) users like myself would prefer to move to the
modern/strict/label
mode and get rid of the classic mode. But we're not willing to do so if
it
clutters our use of the standard library.

I hope this represents the reason for the 'arguments' here, especially
ones for removing labels from the standard library (or, keeping the 
old unlabelled one).

I do not feel I gain the real advantage of labels with GUI/PCRE
type libraries _unless_ the labelled optional argument things
commute. I also don't want to clutter use of simple
standard library  functions with labels.


So here's a suggestion. Get rid of classic mode.
But have TWO complete standard libraries:

	module Classic = .. put classic modules here ..
	module Olabl = put labelled versions here

and now we can choose libraries in the usual way
with 

	open Classic

or

	open Olabl

IF -classic or -label is specified on the compiler
command line, one of these open statements is inserted
into each module 'by magic', this is a compatibility hack
for legacy code.

Now, we have two libraries, but one language. This is not ideal,
but it is better, because now we can ague about how to merge
the libraries, and because libraries are generally under _user_ control,
whereas compilers are not.

-- 
John (Max) Skaller at OTT [Open Telecommications Ltd]
mailto:maxs@in.ot.com.au      -- at work
mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au  -- at home