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/storage.ml), and
Db.Core.Storage could be a module hierarchy defined in Db.ml, and
Db/Core/Storage.Medium could be a submodule defined in Db/Core/storage.ml,...

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

Fernando


-------------------
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