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 4A8DBBC0A; Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:18:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.135]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l2H0IYrH029106; Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:18:35 +0100 Received: from ppp41-108.lns2.syd6.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.201]) ([59.167.41.108]) by ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 17 Mar 2007 10:48:32 +1030 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,293,1170595800"; d="scan'208"; a="63681697:sNHT20513080" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocamlbuild and automatic dependencies From: skaller To: Daniel de Rauglaudre Cc: Caml List In-Reply-To: <20070316142205.GB28353@yquem.inria.fr> References: <80E2E3A7-2603-4706-8186-566C6DA14452@gmail.com> <729DDA34-5FBE-4570-B10F-B2443B58A2F1@gmail.com> <8FC891E5-C8B6-410F-B2EB-5E06594A0165@gmail.com> <20070316142205.GB28353@yquem.inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 11:18:26 +1100 Message-Id: <1174090706.10421.29.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 45FB33DA.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; dependencies:01 0100,:01 rauglaudre:01 foo:01 foo:01 bug:01 2007,:98 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 imho:01 abstract:01 caml-list:01 define:01 module:03 On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 15:22 +0100, Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote: > Hi, > > > On Mar 14, 2007, at 1:11 PM, Nicolas Pouillard wrote: > > > >module F = Foo > > This means : "define a module named F whose *implementation* is the > implementation of Foo". > > Therefore it is normal that at link time, the system asks for an > implementation of foo. > > IMHO, it is not a bug. No, just hard to understand without an explanation such as the one you gave which is good, thanks! So actually, this F is distinct from Foo, even though all the members are the same. In particular, if Foo has an abstract type t, is F.t the same type as Foo.t? -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net