From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <lisp-hacker@yandex.ru>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C9C17ED34
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 09:16:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received-SPF: None (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  ivg@ieee.org) identity=pra; client-ip=84.201.187.146;
  receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="lisp-hacker@yandex.ru";
  x-sender="ivg@ieee.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: Pass (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of
  lisp-hacker@yandex.ru designates 84.201.187.146 as permitted
  sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=84.201.187.146;
  receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="lisp-hacker@yandex.ru";
  x-sender="lisp-hacker@yandex.ru";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"
Received-SPF: None (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@forward1h.mail.yandex.net) identity=helo;
  client-ip=84.201.187.146;
  receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="lisp-hacker@yandex.ru";
  x-sender="postmaster@forward1h.mail.yandex.net";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnsCAHJhBlBUybuSh2dsb2JhbABFigmvISIBAQEIDQkHFieEUgwuh3acMKFKkg8DiEWFJIdUkmw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,606,1336341600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="167272833"
Received: from forward1h.mail.yandex.net ([84.201.187.146])
  by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 18 Jul 2012 09:16:12 +0200
Received: from web13h.yandex.ru (web13h.yandex.ru [84.201.186.42])
	by forward1h.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id AAFC79E03E2
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:16:09 +0400 (MSK)
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by web13h.yandex.ru (Yandex) with ESMTP id 54A7B3D016BC;
	Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:16:09 +0400 (MSK)
Received: from wimax-client.yota.ru (wimax-client.yota.ru [178.176.46.72]) by web13h.yandex.ru with HTTP;
	Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:16:09 +0400
From: Ivan <ivg@ieee.org>
Envelope-From: lisp-hacker@yandex.ru
To: "caml-list@inria.fr" <caml-list@inria.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <355181342595769@web13h.yandex.ru>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:16:09 +0400
X-Mailer: Yamail [ http://yandex.ru ] 5.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: [Caml-list] parametric modules file layout


Hello!

I'm creating a functor named Forest that is parametrized by two modules: A - defines operations on assoc pair, and H - defines operations on hierarchical types. So I have three signatures : ASSOC, HIER, FOREST and one module Make. Each signature is rather large and needs to be defined both in mli and ml. 

I know, that with types the problem of code repetition can be solved by refactoring them in a separate module (a ml file with implicit mli). Is it a valid solution for signatures? Can I put a signature in the sig.ml file and then refer to it with  ``Sig.ASSOC?'' Or maybe there're other solutions or common practices to solve such problems?


Thanks, in advance.