Re: [Caml-list] Proposal for separate compilation

[Richard Jones <rich@annexia.org>]

On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 06:32:23PM +0200, Alain Frisch wrote:
> You no longer get an error message:
> « Files b.cmo and a.cmo make inconsistent assumptions over interface A »

I don't really understand the intricacies of your proposal, but I do
have a small suggestion.  Can the error messages be made more
explicit.

For example, at the moment one of my colleagues is having lots of
problems building our Merjis test environment on his machine (as is
often the case, sadly ...).  The problems manifest themselves as
the Dynlink error message:

interface mismatch on <module>

This is quite an annoying error message because it doesn't tell you
what module is loading what other module and where it's finding them.
A better message would be:

interface mismatch:
  expected to find <module> with hash <0123456789abcdef>
  but found instead <module> in /usr/lib/ocaml/3.07/foo/bar.cma with
    hash <fedcba9876543210>

This would help greatly with tracking down these problems.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones. http://www.annexia.org/ http://www.j-london.com/
Merjis Ltd. http://www.merjis.com/ - improving website return on investment
If I have not seen as far as others, it is because I have been
standing in the footprints of giants.  -- from Usenet

-------------------
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