Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
Re: Caml-list Digest, Vol 20, Issue 50
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Eric Breck <ebreck@c...>
Subject: Re: Caml-list Digest, Vol 20, Issue 50
> It seems like a module functor allows both anonymous
> signatures (structural) and also anonymous argument
> modules (structural), yet you cannot have
> anonymous functor applications: you have to bind the application to
> a module name. If we really had structural typing that name would
> simply be an alias. Why can't we eliminate that name? ***

I think I don't quite understand your question, but strictly based on  
this paragraph, there *is* a way to avoid binding the name of a  
functor result: include.

include Map.Make(Char)

is perfectly valid, although probably not what you want.

Actually, this raises a question I've had; why must "open" be  
followed by a module path, but "include" can be followed by a module  
expression?

-E r i c