> From: "Yaron M. Minsky" <yminsky@cs.cornell.edu>
>
> The solution suggested below clearly works, but it's just as clearly a
> bit of a hack.  My feeling is that this is a bit of a fundamental
> weakness of ocaml and the module/functor system.  OCaml is generally too
> module-centric, in that structuring tools are available only up to the
> level of modules, and there is no good structure beyond that.
> 
> Another example of this weakness is the lack of support for namespaces.=20
> Again, you can hack namespaces into existence by tossing lots of modules
> in the same file, but that's clearly a bad solution.
> 
> Do any of the other MLs fare better in this department?  And do people
> have good solutions for the namespace problem or the large-scale functor
> problem I outlined earlier?
> 
> y

SML/NJ provides a very useful way of grouping signatures, structures,
functors, etc into libraries.

Hierarchical Modularity. Matthias Blume and Andrew W. Appel, ACM
Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, Volume 21, No. 4
(Jul. 1999).

This paper and others can be found in Matthias's web page.

http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/blume/pub.html

Hope that helps,
Fermin
-------------------
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