Re: [Caml-list] First class module syntax

[octachron <octa@polychoron.fr>]

As a counter-example, consider:

     module type s = sig end (* module type names do not need to start 
with a capital *)
     type s = M

Then,  both

     (* f: s → unit *)
     let f (M:s) = ()

and

     (* g: (module s) → unit *)
     let g (module M:s) = ()

are currently valid.

Consequently, allowing "g:(module s)→unit" to be written as

     let g (M:s) = ()

would be ambiguous.

— octachron.

Le 05/05/2017 à 14:28, Andre Nathan a écrit :
> Hi
>
> I was thinking about the syntax for a function taking a module as a
> parameter, i.e.,
>
>    let f (module M : S) = ...
>
> Off the top of my head I couldn't think of anything that would prevent
> the syntax from being like
>
>    let f (M : S) = ...
>
> I can't think of ways in which this would be ambiguously parsed, so I
> was just wondering what led to the choice of requiring the "module"
> keyword in this case.
>
> Cheers,
> Andre
>