> Isn't it feasible to annotate elements of signatures with something that
> indicates that an identifier really is bound to a value, rather than a
> module??  i.e.

You probably meant "rather than a result of an arbitrary computation".
Yes, it can be done this way, and I believe such annotations in
signatures are necessary for a full treatment of recursion between
modules (the Holy Grail :-).  However, they also pollute signatures
with "implementation details".

For more modest forms of recursion, e.g. cross-recursion between
compilation units, I was hoping this information could be propagated
behind the scene, without cluttering signatures, or just re-inferred and
checked at link-time.  This is just a vague idea.

Cheers,

- Xavier Leroy
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr