Re: [Caml-list] The DLL-hell of O'Caml

[Gerd Stolpmann <info@gerd-stolpmann.de>]

Johan Georg Granström wrote:
>>>I think that rather than being a consequence of strict typing, it is a
>>>possible consequence of treating modules as more-or-less first class,
>>>if you use a representation of modules in which adding a new function
>>>does not preserve binary compatibility.  Does O'Caml do that?
>>>
>>It is also a matter of typing because even toplevel modules can be
>>used to parameterize functors. So adding a new function may break
>>functor applications.
>>
> 
> I don't understand this, can you give an example of such
> a case?

Oh, sorry, I was here on the wrong track. Adding a function does not
break functor applications. Is there any case where module signatures
must exactly match?

Anyway, only being able to add functions is not sufficient. There are
many possible changes of modules that would not break "source-code 
compatibility", but would certainly break binary compatibility, e.g.
new optional arguments, new variants, new methods, etc.

Gerd

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