|Anonymous | Login | Signup for a new account||2014-03-09 20:04 CET|
|Main | My View | View Issues | Change Log | Roadmap|
|View Issue Details|
|ID||Project||Category||View Status||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|0004961||OCaml||OCaml general||public||2010-01-15 12:22||2011-06-01 16:43|
|Priority||normal||Severity||feature||Reproducibility||have not tried|
|Target Version||Fixed in Version|
|Summary||0004961: module rename X = Y.|
|Description||Hi. it would be nice to have a "module rename X = Y" feature. For instance, I have two Postgresql modules. One provided by the postgresql-ocaml package, and another one in my local code. I would like to write "module rename PGconv = Postgresql" so that the local Postgresql module is now refered as PGConv, and such that it *frees* the namespace in order to be able to refer to the Postgresql module of postgresql-ocaml as Postgresql.|
Such a feature would be quite useful, as managing module name conflicts is rather painful in OCaml.
|Tags||No tags attached.|
edited on: 2010-01-19 18:46
Perhaps an "open X as Y" syntax would be more convenient.
In the same spirit, it would be nice to have the following code being valid
module X = struct
let f : t -> .t = blah blah blah...
where .t would represent the type t outside of X, i.e. the first 'type t' declaration.
If you have 2 modules with the same name then it already is unclear, at least to the casual reader, which of the two you are refering too.
As to the suggestion of "open X as Y" that would still leave X (both of them) in the namespace. At least I would expect that. So I would expect X.foo and Y.foo to now be the same. The shadowed other X would still be unaccessable. The "rename X as Y" would make it clearer that it removes X from the namespace and X.foo would be invalid or not Y.foo.
I feel that "open X as Y" can be written as "module Y = X".
And for your type shadowing problem you can use the following (confusing) syntax:
# module X = struct type parent_t = t type t let f : t -> parent_t = fun t -> Obj.magic 0 end;;
module X : sig type parent_t = t type t val f : t -> parent_t end
I really want one module name to disappear.
Suppose you've got two modules A and B.A.
What I want is to write
rename A as C
so that you have module C (the former A module) and module A (the former B.A) module.
More generally, it is somewhat surprising that modules, which are rather semantic in nature, are so tightly coupled with their names, which is a syntactic concept. I am not saying that the approach I proposed is the right one, but it would be nice to be able to have a more efficient way to manage module name clashes in OCaml.
As for the second problem, of type shadowing, the problem is indeed that you can only deal with this rather natural problem by using a confusing syntax. The code proposed by Goswin would look terrible in a .mli file with ocamldoc called upon it. Hence my suggestion of .t for the type in the parent module.
As long as the initial module names are distinct you can rename them to your liking. The original name won't disapear but that doesn't matter if you do it in the right order.
module C = A
module A = B.A (* or open B in this case *)
In other cases you might have to create a dummy name first to get the order right.
module T123 = A
module A = B
module B = T123
An actual rename you would only need when you have for example a module named Buffer and now you want to access the stdlibs Buffer. Or rather when someone else duplicates a module name and you have to work with that code.
|2010-01-15 12:22||yziquel||New Issue|
|2010-01-19 18:44||yziquel||Note Added: 0005230|
|2010-01-19 18:46||yziquel||Note Edited: 0005230|
|2010-02-26 21:58||goswin||Note Added: 0005253|
|2010-02-28 16:49||yziquel||Note Added: 0005254|
|2010-03-01 13:08||goswin||Note Added: 0005255|
|2011-06-01 16:43||doligez||Status||new => acknowledged|
|Copyright © 2000 - 2011 MantisBT Group|