From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id IAA05421; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 08:37:23 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 IAA05384 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 08:37:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lri.lri.fr (lri.lri.fr [129.175.15.1]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h396bK916727 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 08:37:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from pc8-123 (mail@pc8-123 [129.175.8.123]) by lri.lri.fr (8.11.6p2/jtpda-5.3.2) with ESMTP id h396War25647 ; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 08:32:36 +0200 (MEST) Received: from filliatr by pc8-123 with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19398N-0003wg-00; Wed, 09 Apr 2003 08:32:35 +0200 From: Jean-Christophe Filliatre MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <16019.48771.767140.795030@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 08:32:35 +0200 To: Lukasz Lew Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Feature request. In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 7.03 under Emacs 20.7.2 Reply-To: Jean-Christophe.Filliatre@lri.fr (Jean-Christophe Filliatre) X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Spam: no; 0.00; filliatre:01 lri:01 caml-list:01 lukasz:01 lew:01 soundness:01 filliatr:01 compiler:01 feasible:01 sml:01 writes:01 parser:02 exception:02 module:03 types:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Lukasz Lew writes: > > I found that it would be usefull if some of the language constructions > could be made localy. For example "open ... in" or "type ... in". > Why "open in" isn't in standard parser? > > Why some constructions are restricted to global (module) use? Be aware that it may easily lead to scope issues. In SML, there used to be local exceptions (exception E in ...) and it was breaking type soundness, since an exception could obviously escape the scope of its declaration (unless the compiler is doing a static analysis over exceptions possibly raised, difficult yet feasible, but SML was not). I guess that with a "type ... in" construct, a type could probably escape its scope the same way, leading to serious issues in assigning legal types to expressions. Just a guess... -- Jean-Christophe Filliātre (http://www.lri.fr/~filliatr) ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners