Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
Re: [Caml-list] Questions concerning modules as first-class values
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Dario Teixeira <darioteixeira@y...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Questions concerning modules as first-class values

> I disagree with your terminology. Below is the one I use:
> ------------------------------------------
> |          | 0-arity     | n-arity (n>0) |
> ------------------------------------------
> | Value    | constant    | function      |
> |          |             |               |
> | Module   | structure   | functor       |
> ------------------------------------------

This terminology is indeed better.  But note that since modules are now
first-class "values", the word "value" itself becomes ambiguous.  I'm not
trying to be picky; I think that having clear, unambiguous terminology is
essential to properly convey a message, particularly to beginners.

> If I well understood what Alain Frisch and Xavier Leroy explained,
> modules (including both structures and functors) become first class
> value: structures may be converted to records and functors to functions;
> and conversely. But I let more informed person confirm this.

I am not sure about the implementation details, but at least syntax-wise
I did not get the impression that structures would be converted to records.
What do you mean, exactly?

Dario Teixeira