> > 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
> 
> Is is safe to use the less conservative version? I believe it's quite
> useful.

The documentation is wrong and will be corrected.  The intended
operation is indeed "include module-type", and that's what the
compiler implements.  Feel free to use it.

- Xavier Leroy
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr