RE: [Caml-list] Invoking the standard library ?

[David Teller <David.Teller@univ-orleans.fr>]

On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 20:07 +0100, David Allsopp wrote:
> I don't quite following the motivation for needing module Inria: there's no
> problem with writing:
> 
> module String = struct
>   include String
>   (* Your functions here *)
> end

Doesn't work whenever the module is contained in its own file.

(*File string.ml*)
include String
let _ = print_endline "Done"
(*end of file string.ml*)

$ ocamlbuild string.cmo
Circular build detected
  (string.cmi already seen in [ string.cmi; string.cmo ])
Compilation unsuccessful after building 1 target (0 cached) in 00:00:00.

$ ocamldep string.ml
string.cmo: string.cmo 
string.cmx: string.cmx 

$ ocamlc string.ml
File "string.ml", line 1, characters 8-14:
Unbound module String

etc.

> but I think perhaps I've not understood the problem properly. That said, why
> is defining module Inria clumsy? I copied the table of contents from the
> StdLib page and with a couple of %s instructions got
> 
> module Inria =
> struct
>   module Arg = Arg
>   module Array = Array
> (* 34 additional lines *)
>   module StringLabels = StringLabels
>   module Sys = Sys
> end
> 
> Which is exactly what you want, right? 

Auto-generating the module is not hard. It's getting everything to
compile without having to hand-write a Makefile (e.g. with ocamlbuild).
Indeed, module Inria depends on [the original] String, [the original]
Sys, etc... and I wouldn't want ocamlbuild or ocamldep to decide
compiling string.ml before inria.ml.


Cheers,
 David

-- 
David Teller
 Security of Distributed Systems
  http://www.univ-orleans.fr/lifo/Members/David.Teller
 Angry researcher: French Universities need reforms, but the LRU act
brings liquidations.