]> Andrej Bauer wrote: > Because of problems like these I sometimes wish I had first-class > modules. I wonder how different that is from having first-class > polymorphic records, actually. Perhaps a bit of camlp4 to wrap up > records in module-like notation would do the trick. > If your modules do not define new types, then the main difference is that of name spaces (records pollute the global namespace, modules define local namespaces). However, I could not get far with modules that only define new values (functions). Bottom line: I too very much wish for first-class, higher-order modules. As O'Caml already has open and closed products (viz rows and records), open and closed sums (viz polymorphic and 'normal' variants), the resulting system could steal back the 'elegant' monicker that has drifted towards Haskell. Jacques