Browse thread
recursive modules: Cannot safely evaluate the definition
[
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: | 2008-04-04 (15:24) |
From: | Hendrik Tews <tews@c...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] recursive modules: Cannot safely evaluate the definition |
Jean-Christophe Filliâtre <Jean-Christophe.Filliatre@lri.fr> writes: Keiko Nakata wrote: > Hello. > > I think that functors cannot be recursive in the current OCaml. They can: [example deleted] For those who are interested but were too lazy to read the paper that Keiko pointed to: In a set of recursive modules every dependency cycle has to go through a safe module, whose signature consists only of functions, lazy values and exceptions and submodules with the same requirement. Initialization first initializes all safe modules by providing function bodies that throw execptions. Then initialize the remaining modules in the order of their dependency. In the end the functions in the safe modules are replace in place with the right closures. For this replacement trick to work you need to know the size of the safe modules. Functors are closures whose size cannot determined from their signature, thus functors are never safe. This does not exclude functors in recursive modules. It only means that apart from the functors you need at least one safe module. See 7.9 in the reference manual for a very sensible example with a functor. If there are dependency cycles without a safe module, you apparently get the "Cannot safely evaluate ..." error. If you have dependency cycles with two or more safe modules than the compiler might choose an initialization order that does not work. Then it might help to make some of the safe modules unsafe. Bye, Hendrik