Re: [Caml-list] About modules again

[Nicolas FRANCOIS (AKA El Bofo) <nicolas.francois@free.fr>]

Le Mon, 15 Jul 2002 10:44:35 +0200 Markus Mottl <markus@oefai.at> a écrit
:


> This is the point where higher-order modules (functors) enter the game.
> If you have some common functionality that is shared across all rings,
> you can factor it out in a functor body. E.g.:
> 
>   module MakeRing (Spec : RING_SPEC) : RING = struct
>     include Spec
> 
>     (* All common stuff follows here *)
>   end
> 
> Module "Spec" should adhere to a signature "RING_SPEC", the latter
> specifying what is different or at least parameterizable for each
> ring. Applying the functor to such a specification yields a module that
> implements the signature RING, e.g.:
> 
>   module Ring_Z = MakeRing (Ring_Z_Spec)
> 
> The specification of rings over Z (Ring_Z_Spec) may itself be the result
> of a functor application. This way you can highly modularize the
> creation of algebraic structures.

I see your point. Conway does something like this in his math packages.
I'll try to adapt the technique.

Thanks Markus.

\bye

-- 

                   Nicolas FRANCOIS
            http://nicolas.francois.free.fr
 A TRUE Klingon programmer does NOT comment his code
-------------------
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