Browse thread
Re: [Caml-list] Questions concerning modules as first-class values
- Dario Teixeira
[
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: | Dario Teixeira <darioteixeira@y...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Questions concerning modules as first-class values |
Hi,
> 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?
Cheers,
Dario Teixeira