From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 504EABC0A; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 04:46:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from ipmail02.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail02.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.141]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l2F3kl5p008740; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 04:46:48 +0100 Received: from ppp244-227.lns3.syd6.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.201]) ([121.44.244.227]) by ipmail02.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 15 Mar 2007 14:16:40 +1030 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,286,1170595800"; d="scan'208"; a="97757108:sNHT11168861634" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocamlbuild and automatic dependencies From: skaller To: Alain Frisch Cc: Caml List In-Reply-To: <45F861C3.3050001@inria.fr> References: <80E2E3A7-2603-4706-8186-566C6DA14452@gmail.com> <729DDA34-5FBE-4570-B10F-B2443B58A2F1@gmail.com> <8FC891E5-C8B6-410F-B2EB-5E06594A0165@gmail.com> <1173903095.30055.16.camel@rosella.wigram> <45F861C3.3050001@inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:46:38 +1100 Message-Id: <1173930398.31293.4.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 45F8C1A7.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; dependencies:01 0100,:01 frisch:01 compilation:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 alain:01 modules:02 hmm:02 occurrences:02 occurrences:02 On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 21:57 +0100, Alain Frisch wrote: > skaller wrote: > > That links fine -- why would you expect introducing > > an alias to change the compilation requirements? > > Just in case: there is no such thing as module aliasing in OCaml (for a > decent definition of aliasing). In particular, after writing "module A = > B", it is not always valid to replace occurrences of B with occurrences > of A. Hmm .. another weirdness of the module system. You say "it is not always valid" .. so when is it valid? I have to say after quite some time writing Ocaml I still don't really understand modules. -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net