> > 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?

Yours,

- Johan Granström

-------------------
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/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners