caml-list - the Caml user's mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Berry <dave@kal.com>
To: Brian Rogoff <bpr@best.com>, Claudio Russo <crusso@microsoft.com>
Cc: Dave Berry <dave@kal.com>, Alain Frisch <frisch@clipper.ens.fr>,
	Caml list <caml-list@inria.fr>,
	kfl@it.edu, sestoft@dina.kvl.dk
Subject: RE: first class, recursive, mixin modules (was: RE: first class m odules)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:13:29 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3145774E67D8D111BE6E00C0DF418B663B15F0@nt.kal.com> (raw)

----Original Message-----
From: Brian Rogoff [mailto:bpr@best.com]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 22:16
>That's no problem for me. Dave, in the case you mentioned, do you think
>this would this be problematic? I couldn't guess from your description.

This example has been bugging me all weekend; I can't reconstruct what it
was.  I think we wanted to write a pair of recursive functor applications,
viz:

structure S1 = F1 (S2)
and S2 = F2 (S1);

but I find it hard to believe that the two functors already existed in a
form suitable to apply this way.  More likely, I suspect, was that we wanted
to make the minimum modification to each module hierarchy to put them into
this form.  In particular, we wanted to avoid having to extract a file to be
shared at the bottom of the two hierarchies, on the grounds that this would
break the abstractions we had set up.

So what I would like from a recursive module feature is the ability to
separately compile two functors and then mutually apply them, as above.  (Or
some equivalent using forward declarations, perhaps).  I realise that in
separately compiling the two functors I might produce a less efficient
representation for the datatypes that are split across the two functors, but
I could live with that.

Dave.



             reply	other threads:[~2001-01-16 10:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-01-15 14:13 Dave Berry [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-02-09  9:41 Claudio Russo
2001-02-09 16:47 ` Brian Rogoff
2001-02-09 21:45 ` William Chesters
2001-01-14 20:51 Brian Rogoff
2001-01-12 12:12 Claudio Russo
2001-01-11 18:15 Dave Berry
2001-01-11 20:01 ` Brian Rogoff

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=3145774E67D8D111BE6E00C0DF418B663B15F0@nt.kal.com \
    --to=dave@kal.com \
    --cc=bpr@best.com \
    --cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
    --cc=crusso@microsoft.com \
    --cc=frisch@clipper.ens.fr \
    --cc=kfl@it.edu \
    --cc=sestoft@dina.kvl.dk \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).