From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB8127F249
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:48:48 +0100 (CET)
Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  oliver@first.in-berlin.de) identity=pra;
  client-ip=192.109.42.8;
  receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="oliver@first.in-berlin.de";
  x-sender="oliver@first.in-berlin.de";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  oliver@first.in-berlin.de) identity=mailfrom;
  client-ip=192.109.42.8;
  receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="oliver@first.in-berlin.de";
  x-sender="oliver@first.in-berlin.de";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@einhorn.in-berlin.de) identity=helo;
  client-ip=192.109.42.8;
  receiver=mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="oliver@first.in-berlin.de";
  x-sender="postmaster@einhorn.in-berlin.de";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsQBAAroj1DAbSoIe2dsb2JhbABEw0gjAQEWJgQjgh4BAQQBOj8FCwsOCi5XBhOIAAYErG2QO4t3hXxhA5V1hWmNSQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,679,1344204000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="160899072"
Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 30 Oct 2012 15:48:48 +0100
X-Envelope-From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de
Received: from [2.164.88.53] (tmo-106-86.customers.d1-online.com [80.187.106.86])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Debian-1) with ESMTP id q9UEmj3Q031278
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT);
	Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:48:47 +0100
References: <508F22BD.7010103@riken.jp> <CACX4useWCnu4tg2jAkSx=K=38BaHimgZWRFPF1Jyj5gw+YHAbg@mail.gmail.com> <026F32A8-2790-4CDD-A839-58655A8074CA@first.in-berlin.de> <CACX4usdF7DVXqHp4YoBwRrpUjTpLErJjbe3Zsy5OF1jywz+7-Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACX4usdF7DVXqHp4YoBwRrpUjTpLErJjbe3Zsy5OF1jywz+7-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Message-Id: <63B299BC-43D3-40B4-8022-D539E6D5D97F@first.in-berlin.de>
Cc: caml-list <caml-list@inria.fr>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (10A403)
From: Oliver Bandel <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:49:00 +0100
To: Anton Lavrik <alavrik@piqi.org>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang_at_IN-Berlin_e.V. on 192.109.42.8
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Why should I use .mli files?



Am 30.10.2012 um 15:45 schrieb Anton Lavrik <alavrik@piqi.org>:

> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Oliver Bandel
> <oliver@first.in-berlin.de> wrote:
>> 
>> Am 30.10.2012 um 07:12 schrieb Anton Lavrik <alavrik@piqi.org>:
>> 
>>> The biggest inconvenience with .mli files as I see it is that I have
>>> to repeat myself and make related but slightly different changes in
>>> two places when I change a module implementation. I would very much
>>> prefer to declare and document public interfaces next to the
>>> implementation and have language tooling take care of separate
>>> compilation and documentation generation.
>> 
>> 
>> ocamlc -i
>> is your friend...
> 
> "ocamlc -i" is useful, but it can't distinguish between public and
> private interfaces and it wouldn't be helpful for generating
> documentation.
> 
> Anton

Ah, now I see what you mean...

Ciao,
   Oliver