>Are you sure you agree?

I agree with what I thought you were saying.  :)  I thought we had the same 
high-concept, which is just that you can apply the 80/20 rule here and do 
_something_ to alleviate the DAG module problem without doing some totally 
general thing like Tom's mixin modules thing.  I think 80% of the problem 
for me would be solved by allowing recursive function calls.  The next 15% 
would be solved by allowing types to recurse (the example you asked for is 
two records that refer to each other).  The next 5% is everything 
else.  But, I'd happily take just functions calling recursively across 
modules, because that would just be huge, and allow me to refactor into 
smaller modules, increasing compile speed, decoupling, etc.

I would even be happy with this in as a temporary feature and I'd have to 
rewrite code when the real thing came along.  I actually wish the ocaml 
team was a bit more interested in these kinds of temporary experimental 
things.  I guess people scream when features get taken out, but it's way 
better to do this sort of thing now than later when there are more caml users.

Chris

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