Browse thread
small typing problem with modules ...
-
Pietro Abate
-
Julien Signoles
- Pietro Abate
- Andreas Rossberg
-
Julien Signoles
[
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: | -- (:) |
| From: | Pietro Abate <Pietro.Abate@p...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] small typing problem with modules ... |
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 02:37:18PM +0200, Julien Signoles wrote:
> >but then I'm a bit lost putting all this together ...
> >I know I'm close ... a small hint ?
> Hum, module types cannot be parameterized. If you want to use a functor
> signature, you can write the following :
uhmmm I was wondering ... :)
> =====
> module type T =
> functor (Extra : A.Extra) ->
> functor (A : A.T with type extra = Extra.t) ->
> sig val f : A.extra -> unit end
>
> module Make : T
>
> open A
> val f : extra -> unit
> =====
>
> But I'm pretty sure that is not really what is expected...
> However why cannot you just add an another abstract type in your
> signature like below?
well it does not solve the duplication problem as I cannot write
something like :
include T (A.ExtraDefault) (A)
as we don't have functorized module types as you pointed out. you just
moved the functor signature to the type T ...
> =====
> module type T = sig
> type extra
> val f : extra -> unit
> end
>
> module Make(Extra : A.Extra)(A : A.T with type extra = Extra.t)
> : T with type extra = A.extra
>
> open A
> val f : extra -> unit
> =====
ok, I can do that, but it would be still annoying as the module A might
contain a lot of types that I would need to add to the signature T in
b.mli . Something like :
module type T = sig
type a
type b
...
type n
val fa : a -> unit
val fb : b -> unit
...
val fn : n -> unit
end
but this should solve the duplication problem as I can now write
something like
include T with type extra = A.extra ( .... and all other types .... )
I'm still not really satisfied with this solution, but I'm now worried
that with the current syntax is just not possible to solve my problem...
thanks :)
pp