[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | skaller <skaller@u...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] My wishlist: DRY modules |
On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 09:09, brogoff wrote: > On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Brian Hurt wrote: > > > > I'm doing some work with modules, and I'm learning some of their > > annoyances. Number one is having to repeat module type definitions. For > > example, say you have a file foo. In foo.mli, you have: > > It's annoying, but in the case you describe, just put the signatures > in their own separate file (sigs.ml or whatever), then you refer to them as > Sigs.T, Sigs.S, etc., and you don't need to repeat them, or change them in > more than one place as you develop. If you do it that way, the annoyance > becomes pretty small. But can you do that with functor instances? When I write something like: module IntSet = Set.Make(struct type t = int end) but type of IntSet is be spelled out long hand in the mli file. This is far worse than merely reflecting the interface of a module you wrote by hand -- it also breaks with upgrades to the library :( Of course I can use ocamlc -i, but then I can't apply any constraints. I'd like to be able to instantiate a functor type too. Can this be done? -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net ------------------- 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