Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
RE: [Caml-list] Style question
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2001-09-12 (10:25)
From: Dave Berry <Dave@k...>
Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Style question
It's certainly not a style I would consider using in SML itself.  I
haven't written enough OCaml code to say how I would write this in

My preferred solution would be simply to allow a "local" prefix to any
declaration, which would indicate that that entity would not be visible
outside the current scope.


-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Rogoff []
Sent: 09 September 2001 22:00
Subject: [Caml-list] Style question

I've been hacking a bit with SML lately and I notice that a lot of
SML code uses the local <private fundefs> in <public fundefs> end
construct. Do SMLers who like this and wind up writing OCaml use
modules for this? Something like

module SomeDefs : sig
  <public fundecls>
end = struct
  <private fundefs>
  <public fundefs>
(* <open or include> SomeDefs, or just use SomeDefs.f ... *)

or is the slight extra verbosity a disincentive?

It seems to me that all of the uses of local in SML can be handled can
handled by the module system in OCaml, and I don't even find the
forms to be bad at all.

-- Brian

Bug reports:  FAQ:
To unsubscribe, mail  Archives:
Bug reports:  FAQ:
To unsubscribe, mail  Archives: