Xavier Leroy wrote:
> 
> I can't remember, but the design and implementation of "with module"
> dates back to 1996, so my memory is a bit hazy :-)

BTW, to challenge your memory a bit more :-), was there a reason not to
integrate manifest module specifications along with "with module"? It
seems a bit odd that I can write

  sig
    module X : S
  end
  with module X = Y

and now even

  sig
    module X : S
    include sig module Y : T end with module Y = X
  end

but not simply

  sig
    module X : S = Y
  end

and

  sig
    module X : S
    module Y : T = X
  end

as for types.

> There might be examples of signature surgery where the current
> behavior is useful (I need to go back to my examples to check),

I believe so as well, but up to now I was not able to come up with any.
If you have an interesting example, I would like to learn about it.

Cheers,
	- Andreas


PS: The docs seem to be somewhat `conservative' on include for
signatures: they say the syntax is

	include modtype-path

but obviously it is the more general

	include module-type

-- 
Andreas Rossberg, rossberg@ps.uni-sb.de

"Computer games don't affect kids.
 If Pac Man affected us as kids, we would all be running around in
 darkened rooms, munching pills, and listening to repetitive music."
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr