Re: More about modules

Re: More about modules

[Christophe Raffalli]

Xavier Leroy wrote:
> - Inclusion of structures into larger structures (in the style of
> "open" in SML): I agree this is desirable, and we already have the
> syntax for it ("struct ... include S ... end").  It requires a little
> more implementation work than exception renaming, so I'll probably do
> it for 3.01.

> Opinions?
> 
> - Xavier Leroy

I really agree: the include for structure you proposed is needed.

But include Module with .... Is also really needed. Here is an example
(not reallistic):

module type Set =
        sig
                type elt
        end
\x13
module type Morphisme =
        sig
                module E : Set
                module F : Set
                type elt = E.elt -> F.elt
        end     

module type Endomorphisme
        sig
                include Morphisme with module E = F
        end

I know you can allways find another way of writing. But this is much
clearer with the "include .. with" !



-- 
Christophe Raffalli
Université de Savoie
Batiment Le Chablais, bureau 21
73376 Le Bourget-du-Lac Cedex

tél: (33) 4 79 75 81 03
fax: (33) 4 79 75 87 42
mail: Christophe.Raffalli@univ-savoie.fr
www: http://www.lama.univ-savoie.fr/~RAFFALLI