From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA15292 for caml-red; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:59:13 +0100 (MET)
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA06695 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:25:08 +0100 (MET)
Received: from mail5.microsoft.com (mail5.microsoft.com [131.107.3.121])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with SMTP id f08GP7r29147
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:25:07 +0100 (MET)
Received: from 157.54.9.108 by mail5.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Mon, 08 Jan 2001 07:00:16 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
Received: by inet-imc-05.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.58)
	id <CL42R58D>; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 07:00:13 -0800
Message-ID: <112C6E8A1B25D34BB27D48D2FD2E96CFC94299@TVP-MSG-02.europe.corp.microsoft.com>
From: Claudio Russo <crusso@microsoft.com>
To: Alain Frisch <frisch@clipper.ens.fr>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr, kfl@it.edu, sestoft@dina.kvl.dk
Subject: RE: first class modules (was: alternative module systems) 
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 06:59:53 -0800 
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.58)
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr

 
> > For the record, your simplification based on identity of signature
> > identifiers
> > is probably ok in practice, but it does
> > rule out some examples that involve package types with free type
> > variables. 
> 
> Right. Would it break something to allow named module type with
> explicit arguments:
> 
> module type 'a ARRAY = sig
>    type array
>    val init: 'a -> array
>    val sub: array -> int -> 'a
>    val update : array -> int -> 'a -> array
> end
> 
> ?
> 
> Then the unification between < (a1,...,ap) S > and < (b1,...,bq) T >
> is solved by equating S = T (syntactically), p=q  and unifying
> a1=b1,...,ap=bp.


I think this would be fine, but you then also have to deal with the
meaning
of these parameterised signatures in other contexts, eg:

functor F(X: ('a -> int) S )= <modexp>;

and so on. Is this declaration illegal or should the functor F be
implicitly polymorphic in 'a?
This is not impossible to deal with, just needs some more work. I
suppose you could only allow
signature applications in core type expressions of the form < sigexp >,
but that seems a little hacky.

-c




> 
> -- 
>   Alain Frisch
> 
>