Chris Hecker wrote:
> 
>> Do you see what the problems are with the module system?
> 
> 
> Okay, let me restate your point ...  Right?
> 

Yes. I'm glad I made my point clear.

> 
> Assuming we're on the same page about all of the above, do you think the 
> syntax of the module system should or should not be overloaded for 
> namespaces?

It doesn't really matter to me. I don't advocate the 
explicit use of the "namespace" keyword. I don't care at 
all, so long as naming problems are kept at the naming level 
and linking problems at the linking level.

> It seems like there are a couple different options:
> 
> 1.  relax the semantics of module inclusion/initialization so that -pack 
> can simultaneously provide the nested module syntax of Package.Foo but 
> it doesn't have to link all of the submodules, like a cma

I think this solution is unduly complex to implement, but 
then again, I am a caml rider, not a caml breeder...

> 2.  define a new namespace system and syntax (or reuse the module 
> syntax, not sure what the issues are there)

This is my suggestion: use a minor backward compatible 
syntax extension to allow for namespace use.

> Are there any other options?  Did I get all of that right?

Not that I know of.

> I agree that if the module semantics make it so that pack must link all 
> submodules and run all initialization then it's too heavyweight and it 
> either needs to be changed or there needs to be a new system.

Right.

Cheers, Chris.

Alex

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