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] The DLL-hell of O'Caml
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Johan_Georg_Granström <georg.g@h...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The DLL-hell of O'Caml
> > I think that rather than being a consequence of strict typing, it is a
> > possible consequence of treating modules as more-or-less first class,
> > if you use a representation of modules in which adding a new function
> > does not preserve binary compatibility.  Does O'Caml do that?
> It is also a matter of typing because even toplevel modules can be
> used to parameterize functors. So adding a new function may break
> functor applications.

I don't understand this, can you give an example of such
a case?


- Johan Granström

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: