Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr> writes:
> I'd rather not.  What you're looking for is not sets, but sets with
> some extra ordering properties.  Don't use the generic Set package, then.
> Use your own Ordered_set package.  (Feel free to cut and paste from
> set.ml to implement it, of course.)  Well-defined abstract interfaces
> are more important that code sharing, in my opinion.

Of course, you can have your cake and eat it too in the present case:
rename the current Set into OrderedSet (for instance) and then create
a Set module (now that the other one disappeared) as a wrapper around
OrderedSet.


        Stefan

----

Donc, en gros, au lieu de définir Set et OrderedSet indépendemment,, il suffit
de définir Set au-dessus de OrderedSet et comme ça on peut avoir le beurre et
l'argent du beurre: une interface propre et une bonne réutilisation du code.


        Stefan