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

[Christopher Quinn <cq@htec.demon.co.uk>]

> 
> But A.cmo does not contain SIGB -- only a mention of B and a hash of
> SIGB.  The reason is quite simple: A.cmo would be *huge* if it
> included a copy of the signatures of every module it refers, either
> directly or indirectly.  (Think several megabytes.)

Any idea how much improvement would come from hash-consing, 
as Dave Berry suggested? And only that part of a module's 
signature which pertained to actual usage would need 
inclusion, no? And only of those modules externally provided 
upon which one's project depends, ie. the standard library, 
not the internal project modules?

Inclusion of such signature fragments need only be an 
optional feature when building distributed libraries, not 
generally for development (inhabiting every .cmo), so the 
'bloat' is at least confined to where it matters, at the 
boundary.

Chris Q.

be an optional feature of libraries alone, thus confining 
any sort of bloat to distributed libs, commercial or otherwise?

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