English version
Accueil     Ŕ propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis ŕ jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml ŕ l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
[Caml-list] OCaml popularity
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Chris Hecker <checker@d...>
Subject: Re: Module recursion (Was Re: [Caml-list] Re: Haskell-like syntax)

>The most annoying (to me) case where the lack of module recursion is 
>really hits is the problem of wanting type declarations and functor 
>instantiations in a recursive relationship. If this problem, which seems 
>like more of a compilation problem than a typing problem, were fixed, I 
>don't think I'd care that much about having a general recursive module 
>facility. I can live with the (admittedly sometimes ugly) workarounds in 
>other cases where module recursion is desirable. ... That's not to say I 
>wouldn't like or use a general recursive module feature, but the full 
>problem seems awfully hard in a (strict, impure) language like ML and I 
>doubt that I'll see it in OCaml before I retire.

I agree with this.  If I could just call functions and use types 
recursively across modules, I'd be 95% satisfied and it would allow 95% of 
the decoupling needed for large projects, and it's probably only 5% of the 
work (I think there was a tiny patch that allowed this in an older version 
of caml).  That would be great.  We don't need the 100% perfect recursion 
solution to make caml much more useful large projects.  95% now better than 
100% never.  :)


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