caml-list - the Caml user's mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "\"Mark\"" <mark@proof-technologies.com>
To: <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: [Caml-list] Some questions about building OCaml programs
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 08:01:43 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1353225703782@names.co.uk> (raw)

Hi,

I've got a series of interrelated questions about alternatives and
what appear to be limitations in building OCaml programs.  I hope you
don't mind me packaging these together into one thread.

I am writing a program that runs in the OCaml toplevel, implemented as
a series of modules.  Each module has a .mli source code file for its
interface and a .ml source code file for its body.

I would like to be able to do both of the following:
A. Process the program interactively in the toplevel (using #use
directives);
B. Build the program into an extended toplevel (using 'ocamlc' to
create .cmi and .cmo files, followed by 'ocamlmktop').

QUESTION 1

It seems that for A, each .mli file must have "outer module syntax",
e.g. something like:
   "module type <Sig> = sig <interface> end"
and each .ml file must have something like:
   "module <Mod> : <Sig> = struct <body> end".

And it seems that for B, 'ocamlc' requires each .mli file not to have
the outer syntax, i.e. to be of the form:
   "<interface>"
and similarly each .ml file to be of the form:
   "<body>".

Am I correct?  If so, why can't 'ocamlc' deal with the form for files
acceptable for A?  Wouldn't it be better to have the option of
'ocamlc' allowing the syntax required for A?

QUESTION 2

This is just about A.  I want to have a file "main.ml" which has #use
directives for all the module files, and to call "main.ml" itself
using a #use directive.  It seems that a #use directive fails if there
is an error in the given source code file, but not if the source code
file itself contains #use directives (like my "main.ml") that fail.
Why is this?  Wouldn't it be better all failures bubbled to the top?

QUESTION 3

This is just about B.  It seems the 'ocamlmktop' command will only
incorporate what are, ultimately, modules into the toplevel.  Am I
correct?  Why can't it also incorporate directives and top level
definitions?

QUESTION 4

The 'ocaml' command can be called without a file argument, in which
case a toplevel interactive session is started.  It can also be called
with a source code file argument, in which case the source code file
is processed through the toplevel and then the session is terminated.
Is there a way to process a file but then not terminate and instead
enter an interactive toplevel session (with the source code file
incorporated)?

Mark.

             reply	other threads:[~2012-11-18  8:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-11-18  8:01 "Mark" [this message]
2012-11-18  9:32 ` Gabriel Scherer
2012-11-18 14:43 "Mark"
2012-11-18 15:40 ` Gabriel Scherer

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=1353225703782@names.co.uk \
    --to=mark@proof-technologies.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).