On 22/07/2010 04:29, Alain Frisch wrote:
> On 7/21/2010 8:41 PM, Dumitru Potop-Butucaru wrote:
>> If I understand well, what I try to do is impossible for
>> some deep theoretical reason. Can someone explain this
>> to me, or point me to a relevant paper explaining it?
>
> Turning a module type into a module is not possible in general: if the 
> module type defines runtime components like values, what module would 
> you produce?

I do not understand why you talk about transforming a module type
in a module. What I wanted to do is to use a functor signature as a
transformer of module types in module types (just as a functor
transforms a module into another module). Following the
definitions of the reference manual of 3.12.0+beta1, section 2.4,
doing this seems very natural, even if it is currently impossible.

Jacky Potop