From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id GAA30276; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 06:28:29 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA29493 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 06:28:27 +0100 (MET) Received: from athlon.baretta.com ([213.255.109.130]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h2S5SQX29045 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 06:28:27 +0100 (MET) Received: from baretta.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by athlon.baretta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61852273BB; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 06:33:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3E83DEC4.8030307@baretta.com> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 06:33:56 +0100 From: Alessandro Baretta Organization: Baretta srl -- www.baretta.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: it, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Hecker , Ocaml Subject: Re: [Caml-list] camlimages vs. labltk References: <3E818E08.2000505@baretta.com> <3E81640C.40009@baretta.com> <20030326083345.GA2985@iliana> <3E816C13.7040507@baretta.com> <20030326105006.GA3891@iliana> <3E818E08.2000505@baretta.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20030326110515.035919b0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20030327113554.0369d060@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam: no; 0.00; alessandro:01 baretta:01 caml-list:01 camlimages:01 labltk:01 hecker:01 restate:01 namespaces:01 -pack:01 foo:01 submodules:01 breeder:01 reuse:01 chris:01 semantics:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Chris Hecker wrote: > >> Do you see what the problems are with the module system? > > > Okay, let me restate your point ... Right? > Yes. I'm glad I made my point clear. > > Assuming we're on the same page about all of the above, do you think the > syntax of the module system should or should not be overloaded for > namespaces? It doesn't really matter to me. I don't advocate the explicit use of the "namespace" keyword. I don't care at all, so long as naming problems are kept at the naming level and linking problems at the linking level. > It seems like there are a couple different options: > > 1. relax the semantics of module inclusion/initialization so that -pack > can simultaneously provide the nested module syntax of Package.Foo but > it doesn't have to link all of the submodules, like a cma I think this solution is unduly complex to implement, but then again, I am a caml rider, not a caml breeder... > 2. define a new namespace system and syntax (or reuse the module > syntax, not sure what the issues are there) This is my suggestion: use a minor backward compatible syntax extension to allow for namespace use. > Are there any other options? Did I get all of that right? Not that I know of. > I agree that if the module semantics make it so that pack must link all > submodules and run all initialization then it's too heavyweight and it > either needs to be changed or there needs to be a new system. Right. Cheers, Chris. Alex ------------------- 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