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] Namespace proposal
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2002-08-15 (17:46)
From: Fernando Alegre <fernando@c...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Namespace proposal
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 12:13:47PM -0500, Gurr, David (MED, self) wrote:
> >  For me package is not a modules collection, but just
> > a way of multi-word module naming. It's not so easy to
> > give short and still adequate names to the modules, but
> > something like Db.Core.Storage looks much better then
> > Dbstorage, and Storage can still be accessed just as
> > "Storage" from modules of the same "package". Just a naming
> > way, nothing more.
> And what happens when you need to abstract over a module/sub-package? -D

I think a naming convention like this is definitely needed, but in order
not to be confused with sub-modules, a different character should be used.
For example:

Db/Core/Storage could be a legal module name (in Db/Core/, and
Db.Core.Storage could be a module hierarchy defined in, and
Db/Core/Storage.Medium could be a submodule defined in Db/Core/,...

An added advantage of this syntax is that it is consistent with the overall
esthetics of the OCaml language (i.e., ugly). :-)


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