Browse thread
Defining a family of functors
[
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: | 2009-01-29 (09:38) |
From: | |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Defining a family of functors |
Excerpts from David Teller's message of Wed Jan 28 12:25:26 +0100 2009: > On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 01:32 +0100, Nicolas Pouillard wrote: > > The encoding of modules using existential types in non modular, this > > basically means that you have to heavily transform the source. > > > > What one need to encode modules is "open" existential types, this well > > and clearly explained in this POPL'09 paper: > > > > «Modeling Abstract Types in Modules with Open Existential Types», > > by Benoît Montagu and Didier Rémy > > Yes, I was just reading that paper. However, it is my impression that we > could get away without open existential types, at the cost of reduced > features. > > On the other hand, it was pointed to me that Alain already wrote a > compiler patch implementing first-class modules. That's right. -- Nicolas Pouillard