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
Wanted: your feedback on the hierarchy of OCaml Batteries Included
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2008-11-20 (14:46)
From: Ashish Agarwal <agarwal1975@g...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] open Module (not?) considered harmful
> Consider
> open Array;;
> open List;;

I doubt anyone is recommending this. The module design dictates, to some
extent, whether the module should be opened. Array and List clearly should
not since they have commonly used function names. However, the proposed
Data.Containers certainly should be opened. There is no confusion about
private names in this case. If I am using Batteries, it will be clear which
module "List" refers to. The bureaucracy of writing open statements at the
top of every file would get cumbersome, but that can be avoided by the
proposed short-circuiting.

On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 6:29 AM, David Allsopp <>wrote:

> On 20 November 2008 10:49, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:33:03AM +0000, Richard Jones wrote:
> > > Encouraging developers to open modules is also usually a bad idea,
> > > except in very limited circumstances (hello Printf).
> >
> > Why? You and others failed me to convince of this. Or, better, I'm
> > sure there are problems with that, but they just show deficiencies
> > inherited from other parts of the language.
> Consider
> open Array;;
> open List;;
> (* Hundreds of lines of code *)
> length [];;
> The code is now is brittle in terms of the order of the open statements at
> the top of the file and will fail to compile if they're swapped. Of course,
> if you don't care about that kind of subtle refactoring error then open is
> completely fine. Personally, I find that kind of brittleness irritating -
> and it also has the potential to waste a huge amount of time if you have to
> refactor the code.
> Whether you find code less readable with or without module names is of
> course a matter taste and IIRC, OCaml 3.11 .annot files contain the
> necessary information to expand them so there could be a nice editor plugin
> to expand or remove module paths...
> > >   The most straightforward solution to this problem to me looks like
> > >   providing a syntax equivalent like "from Module import foo, bar"
> > >   which selectively imports only some identifiers from a given module.
> Which, for values only, is of course a trivial camlp4 extension... and
> could
> be generalised to include type declarations and so on with only a little
> more work. The .NET languages have a syntax for selectively importing
> classes from a namespace rather than the entire namespace (and it's
> different from Java's in that you can rename the class while you do it).
> David
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> Archives:
> Beginner's list:
> Bug reports: