Re: [Caml-list] Warnings opening modules (was: why is building ocaml hard?)

[Hendrik Boom <hendrik@topoi.pooq.com>]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 08:50:25PM +0200, Alain Frisch wrote:
> On 15/07/2016 18:57, Yotam Barnoy wrote:
> >The problem seems to stem from the fact that the same open statements
> >which we use to import code (and which are available in every
> >language) are also used as part of OCaml's super-flexible module
> >system. This makes it hard to come up with easy, simple shortcuts for
> >functionality available in other languages, because it needs to fit in
> >the far more complex general module language.
> 
> There would really be no difficulty to allow specifying which components to
> bring in scope in an "open" statement.  One just need to decide if it is a
> good idea from a language design point of view, and then agree on / fight
> over a syntax.  (One needs to distinguish of course between various kinds of
> components.)

Modula 3 does it this way, and allows you to rename on import.
It also allows you to just import an emtire module, but then you have 
to mention the name of the module every time you use the something it 
provides.

It has no promiscuous 'give me whatever'.

It works.  And it's usually easy to find where something is defined.

Except for methids of object types.  Identifying the particular 
function being called then depends on run-time information.  That's 
inherent to inheritance and overriding.

-- hendrik