> > Just imagine -- it the third millenium, compiling the "best language",
> > we need carefully order the .cmo files. Doing this also would push the
> > "mutually recursive modules" problem.
>
> Things are not this easy: the order is actually required for linking,
> not for compiling (as long as you provide explicit signatures in
> .mli-files).  The order during linking determines in which order side
> effects will be caused when values are initialized, which only the user
> can know. Furthermore, the "mutually recursive modules"-problem is more
> of a typing problem than one of compilation.

Yes, of course, module initialization order should be specified by the CMO
order the user gived at linking phase, but that actually does not imply that
the CMO have to be passed to the linker in the compilation tree order. Well,
right now, that's it... but there does not seems to be a theorical wall
since any C linker is accepting files in any order ( I'm not talking here
about compilation, just linking of course ! )

Nicolas Cannasse

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