On 8/14/07, Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> Yes. Laterally, the point can be addressed by making library writers aware of
> the points that I made. I think Markus Mottl once said that all libraries
> should include phantom types...

Well, I don't know in what context I said this, but one can certainly
always create modules that are equivalent to another one with the
exception of some abstract type taking an extra type parameter.  This
extra parameter could then capture additional constraints on the use
of values of that type.  In that sense it is not necessary that every
library make use of phantom types.

Regards,
Markus

-- 
Markus Mottl        http://www.ocaml.info        markus.mottl@gmail.com