>>>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:48:40 +0900, Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> said:
> Having seen a number of recent messages against having labels in the
> standard library, I have the feeling that there is a lot of
> confusion here, and I would like to make a few points clear.
> * In default (classic) mode, writing labels is (and will stay) not
> required. For those users that do not like labels, or do not want to
>[...]
> * What we are discussing about is modern mode. This is not pedantic
> mode, this is just another typing discipline. This basically doesn't
> concern people who are not very fond of labels, and will be
> perfectly happy with classic mode.
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).
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.
3) I hope classic mode will remain the default for a *long* time.
../Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 17 2000 - 19:55:04 MET