From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 566557EE20 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:22:59 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of nogin@metaprl.org) identity=pra; client-ip=216.14.127.180; receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="nogin@metaprl.org"; x-sender="nogin@metaprl.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of nogin@metaprl.org) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=216.14.127.180; receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="nogin@metaprl.org"; x-sender="nogin@metaprl.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@main.metaprl.org) identity=helo; client-ip=216.14.127.180; receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="nogin@metaprl.org"; x-sender="postmaster@main.metaprl.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuAEAEgkpVDYDn+0X2dsb2JhbABEwlkfUYIfAQV4EQshEwMPCQMCAQIBDyIUEwYCAQGHdwMPsx4NiVSLSGkKgnuDJwOIWotNjQeIIQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.83,259,1352070000"; d="scan'208";a="181723879" Received: from ns.n0bu.com (HELO main.metaprl.org) ([216.14.127.180]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2012 18:22:57 +0100 Received: from hp.nogin.org (c-67-187-188-10.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.187.188.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by main.metaprl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5D1DF78D00A8 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:22:56 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <50A524EF.4010406@metaprl.org> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:22:55 -0800 From: Aleksey Nogin Organization: MetaPRL/Mojave Research Group User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.10) Gecko/20121030 Thunderbird/10.0.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml-list@inria.fr References: <838ab953-d33f-42d5-a363-050217c1b883@googlegroups.com> <20121115092037.GC26744@securactive.lan> In-Reply-To: <20121115092037.GC26744@securactive.lan> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Preferred layout for new packages On 15.11.2012 01:20, rixed@happyleptic.org wrote: > -[ Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:13:58AM -0800, vincent.hugot@gmail.com ]---- >> I for one like the (short-)tests-as-comments approach: being near >> the function, they serve as short specifications, and being >> comments, they don't alter the compilation process in the least. > > The only drawback I saw is that adding or modifying a test triggers > the recompilation of the whole unit when using makefiles (since the > file changed). I wonder if there exist a tool that's able to find out > that since only comments where changed the module need not be > recompiled. Maybe omake can do this ? OMake will do this - when compilation of the source file results in a binary file that's identical to what you had before, the recompilation stops there. E.g. when compilation of a changed .ml results in .cmx/.cmo/.o identical to the one you had before, it knows not to recompile/relink further. Aleksey