Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
Re: [Caml-list] Future of labels
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Kipton M Barros <kbarros@a...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Future of labels, and ideas for library labelling
As a beginning Caml programmer, I'm a fan of strong labels. Their utility
in documenting libraries like LablTk is obvious, but I find that even for
"simple" functions like List.fold_left they're helpful.

Having good label names both serves as a quick reminder of which arguments
are what, but also can help to remind what the function does.  In my
experience, I usually have to reference a function a few times before
getting it memorized; having labels can serve as a mental cue, speeding up
the process.

One label stumbling block I've had is some syntax confusion.  
Specifically, it took me some trial and error to figure out how to do:

let f ~x:y:int = y;;     and
let f ~(x:int) = x;;

Are these constructs mentioned in the tutorial?

Another minor point which may have been mentioned: sometimes when a label
is missing, the compiler can give cryptic error messages.  It might not be
generally possible, but it would be great if the compiler could sometimes
say "maybe missing label here:".

I seem to remember Markus Mottl mentioning earlier something about labels
hindering higher order programming (?).  If I got that right, I'm curious:
what are some examples?

Kipton



-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr