Browse thread
[Caml-list] Future of labels
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | John Max Skaller <skaller@o...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Future of labels |
Markus Mottl wrote: > Even if it seems right that labels scale better on functions that have > many arguments (especially for ones of same type), we shouldn't neglect > the fact that such functions are much, much rarer, both as definition > and as application. We should certainly also consider statistical > (information theoretic) aspects of the "OCaml-channel" when trying to > find an "optimal code". Doesn't this simply suggest that the library author should not se labels on functions with a small number of obvious arguments? > But functions can be designed in a way such that positions will usually > match. As I understand it, this will still work in commuting labelled mode by using labels more sparingly when defining functions. > But I don't care about the benefits of commutation if the label names > don't match. This problem is no different from the same problem applying a functor. The names in the functor signature must match the argument. If they don't you have to 'remap' them by defining another module. > In this case (which is, I fear, the usual one) I'll have > to write out all arguments and label names _anyhow_. let f x y = y in fold_left f x l works in commuting label mode if fold_left is defined without labels. On the other hand: w#set_press (fun ~x ~y ~time ~ctrl ~shift -> ... ) is fine for the set_press GUI function which accepts a callback with a lot of arguments. Aren't we arguing about how much labelling to do in a library, rather than whether using the labels _if provided_ should be mandatory? > I don't know whether you are speaking of label mode, which I don't know > too well. With classic mode I don't find it so difficult: if I use any > non-optional argument that comes after the default arguments, they will > be bound to their defaults. In C++, defaults are given at the _end_ of the parameter list. In Ocaml, they go at the beginning. This is confusing. :-) -- John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au 10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850 checkout Vyper http://Vyper.sourceforge.net download Interscript http://Interscript.sourceforge.net ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr