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 VAA08885; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 21:55:46 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA08060 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 21:55:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from relay.pair.com (relay.pair.com [209.68.1.20]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id h31Jti501676 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 21:55:44 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (qmail 46221 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2003 19:55:42 -0000 Received: from arda.pair.com (HELO compaqreview.d6.com) (209.68.1.133) by relay.pair.com with SMTP; 1 Apr 2003 19:55:42 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 209.68.1.133 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030401114643.01cdd9d8@localhost> X-Sender: checker@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 11:51:05 -0800 To: Damien Doligez , caml-list@inria.fr From: Chris Hecker Subject: Re: [Caml-list] naming conflicts (was: camlimages vs. labltk) In-Reply-To: <45804206-644C-11D7-9F5C-0003930FCE12@inria.fr> References: <20030330103824.GA1884@iliana> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam: no; 0.00; hecker:01 checker:01 caml-list:01 camlimages:01 labltk:01 functor:01 -pack:01 submodules:01 chris:01 cmo:01 semantics:01 simpler:01 linking:02 modules:02 module:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk >First example: >Second example (somewhat artificial): Right, both of those jibe with what I thought you were saying. I don't know enough to understand your functor solution, but -pack could also be used to solve both of these problems, if it did a real partial-link. In other words, if I -pack B and A, and B uses a module A, then B's imports should be resolved to the A that it got packed with. I don't know if this is simpler or more complex than your functor solution, but this one at least could still be handled by current partial linking tools (which is what -pack uses right now). In fact, this might already happen with pack, since you can -pack modules that refer to other modules, and since they're now in a super-module, the semantics are that they should still refer to the submodules at the same scope. So, this should already work with -pack, no? If so, then the cmo/cma partial linking thing is the only thing wrong with -pack from both a package and namespace manager perspective. Or am I missing something obvious? Chris ------------------- 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