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 ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther
-------------------
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