English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

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

Browse thread
[Caml-list] camlimages vs. labltk
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2003-04-01 (19:55)
From: Chris Hecker <checker@d...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] naming conflicts (was: camlimages vs. labltk)

>First example:
>Second example (somewhat artificial):

Right, both of those jibe with what I thought you were saying.  I don't 
know enough to understand your functor solution, but -pack could also be 
used to solve both of these problems, if it did a real partial-link.  In 
other words, if I -pack B and A, and B uses a module A, then B's imports 
should be resolved to the A that it got packed with.  I don't know if this 
is simpler or more complex than your functor solution, but this one at 
least could still be handled by current partial linking tools (which is 
what -pack uses right now).  In fact, this might already happen with pack, 
since you can -pack modules that refer to other modules, and since they're 
now in a super-module, the semantics are that they should still refer to 
the submodules at the same scope.  So, this should already work with -pack, 
no?  If so, then the cmo/cma partial linking thing is the only thing wrong 
with -pack from both a package and namespace manager perspective.

Or am I missing something obvious?


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