Keiko Nakata a écrit :
> Hello,
>
>   
>>> As for extension, I'm fully satisfied. But the verbosity level is 
>>> annoying for scalability...
>>>       
>> Well, yes, that's always the problem with functors...
>>     
>
> Since there are some people (including me) 
> who are interested in using functors and recursive modules 
> in the style of object-oriented context, 
>   
Do you mean including classes in functors, as Jacques Garrigue 
described, or using modules like classes ?

> I thought that it could be useful to devise 
> a (camlp4) syntax extension which mitigates this a bit painful verbosity.
camlp4 extensions may help. I already used some for objects (related to 
initializers), and I plan to investigate it further, possibly borrowing 
code from Jacques Garrigue. In the context of functors, the problem is 
that a lot of code would probably remain specific and still need to be 
written by hand, for example, the row types for classes...

Tiphaine Turpin
>  
>
> At the moment, I have no idea which syntax is general enough and intuitive for us,
> but as far as I understand we always follow similar encodings. 
>
> With best regards,
> Keiko
>
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>