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 LAA24767; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:36:16 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA24244 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:36:15 +0100 (MET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f2DAWE928325; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:32:14 +0100 (MET) Received: (from xleroy@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id LAA24164; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:32:14 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 11:32:14 +0100 From: Xavier Leroy To: Andreas Rossberg Cc: caml-list@inria.fr, Christophe Raffalli Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Caml 3.01 : pb with include Message-ID: <20010313113214.B24377@pauillac.inria.fr> References: <20010311060436.A14277@verdot.inria.fr> <3AACB899.5206E211@univ-savoie.fr> <3AAD03BF.BDABDE1@ps.uni-sb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <3AAD03BF.BDABDE1@ps.uni-sb.de>; from rossberg@ps.uni-sb.de on Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 06:13:35PM +0100 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > Like in the case of Group_morphism above, SG1 and SG2 contain an inv > member in this signature. I think this semantics of module constraints > is not right - it should not extend subsignatures, only propagate type > identities. This not exactly is a bug, but IMHO not what you want in > most situations - at least not in this particular situation. Was there a > particular motivation to design the language this way? I can't remember, but the design and implementation of "with module" dates back to 1996, so my memory is a bit hazy :-) I agree with you that the most natural interpretation of the "with module" constraint is to stand for a bunch of "with type" constraints on the type components of the modules. With this interpretation, the current behavior is a bug. SML'97 also interprets sharing constraints between structures as the implied sharing constraints between the type components of these modules. There might be examples of signature surgery where the current behavior is useful (I need to go back to my examples to check), but I agree it's confusing. - Xavier Leroy ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr