Pierre Weis wrote:
> type row = private int;;

The only difference with an abstract type is that some generic 
operations (comparision, equality) can be optimized, and currently, it 
happens only for some basic types. So exporting a private abbreviation 
(instead of an abstract type) is useless when the type is not a basic 
type. Is it correct?

I find it somewhat disturbing to expose low-level optimization features 
as part of the type system. Couldn't a similar thing (specializing 
operations on integers) be achieved by always storing manifest types in 
.cmxs files?  (Within a single compilation unit, the compiler could keep 
type definitions across module boundaries.)


Alain