caml-list - the Caml user's mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "mattwb" <mattwb@alve.com>
To: <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: [Caml-list] module/signature pattern concerns
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 11:30:38 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <003a01c29703$e1e2fa00$fdeef5d1@unknown427igcj> (raw)


A common pattern that has developed in much of my production
O'Caml code is to write interface files that look something like this:

foo.mli

        module type PARAMS =
            sig
                (* define fixed, run-time configuration parameters *)
            end

        module type ELT =
            sig
                (* ... *)
            end

        module Make (P : PARAMS) : ELT

I define a set of parameters in the PARAMS signature which configure
the Make functor.  So the user program would be something like this:

    let module F = Foo.Make(
        struct
            (* ... *)
        end)
    in
    F.main()

This has become a convenient pattern, and allows me to write more
'opaque' signatures because I don't have to include any parameters in the
ELT signature.  I can use the resulting ELT module as a parameter
in other PARAM signatures in other modules.  This leads to a nice layering
effect.

My concern is that I will take a significant performance hit by using
functors
so much and using so many layers.  I haven't noticed this problem in any of
the code that I have written, but I am slightly paranoid that, at a much
larger
scale, this would become an issue.

As an alternative, I could write something similar without using functors
and
expose some of the module configuration:

foo.mli

        module type ELT
            sig
                (* ... *)
            end
        (* List run-time configuration parameters here *)
        (* This section matches the ELT signature *)

I realize I that I can check this easily myself, but I thought I'd ask the
list so
I could get some possibly new ideas.

Any suggestions?
Alternatives?




-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners


             reply	other threads:[~2002-11-28 17:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-11-28 17:30 mattwb [this message]
2002-11-29  8:27 ` Jean-Christophe Filliatre

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='003a01c29703$e1e2fa00$fdeef5d1@unknown427igcj' \
    --to=mattwb@alve.com \
    --cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).