Browse thread
[Caml-list] mutually referencing compilation units
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Xavier Leroy <xavier.leroy@i...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] mutually referencing compilation units |
> Is the fact that two mutually referencing units can't be compiled > supposed to be a Good Thing? No, it is acknowledged as an unfortunate limitation and an annoyance to the programmer. However, there are deep semantical and type-theoretical reasons that make it hard to allow cross-module recursion in ML. This is actually a research area that is still largely open. > It seems to be a consequence of the fact that > order of .cmo's is relevant Actually, it's the other way around: the order of .cmo's is relevant because the ML module system supports only sequential / nonrecursive definitions of modules, but not parallel / recursive module definitions. - Xavier Leroy ------------------- 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