Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
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: -- (:)
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
OCaml.

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.

Dave.

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Rogoff [mailto:bpr@best.com]
Sent: 09 September 2001 22:00
To: caml-list@inria.fr
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>
end
(* <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
be
handled by the module system in OCaml, and I don't even find the
unsugared
forms to be bad at all.

-- Brian


-------------------
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
-------------------
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