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
[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: 2001-09-11 (10:54)
From: Sven <luther@d...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Style question
On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 11:59:18AM +0200, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> Brian Rogoff wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> It is not exactly sugar since you can express things with local that you
> cannot with signatures - but all of them are pretty useless. My personal
> opinion is that using modules is preferable even in SML, its local being
> an anachronism from the pre-module days, just like abstype. I almost
> never use it. It only comes in handy in conjunction with open:
> 	local open M in
> 	...
> 	end
> Of course, in OCaml this is solved by having open vs. include.

Also, would not :

let module = struct ... end in 

be another solution for it, maybe in conjunction with the open syntax ?


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