From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83])
	by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id oBNFYEnm009477
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 16:34:14 +0100
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: As8AAD/6Ek3RVdivkGdsb2JhbACWD44RCBYBAgkJDAcRBCCnDYl3ghiFCC6IVwEBAwWFRQSLBA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,219,1291590000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="84638504"
Received: from mail-qy0-f175.google.com ([209.85.216.175])
  by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 23 Dec 2010 16:34:08 +0100
Received: by qyk8 with SMTP id 8so6957443qyk.6
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 07:34:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to
         :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type;
        bh=hqEbQ+PdL7iGf9LEhKuVTfVZb+EsUVota8IAGj9D7bU=;
        b=fFDlMrJp3gReHz9HS4+TbM3pAK9khVw7tMl6W6rnfoKCjhUaTjAUb7kUR0yDy2QVJk
         U8Swzbp6yUmC9OuDbSrCL+Jd4LbpsWN9LTggShJISKkO/DQcStFlgfkcjPHEnfHMftO5
         4QYWEQZJ0ToRuHMk51vEhdN/o6/0HEc3DK4Ec=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :content-type;
        b=SnNqGCZX5aSIhoGTQDnRuvvW9OV8PFBt9+pKNs7hHAxk9M+GkINdI52utxNN7JBetP
         RVUKxqx64ASCDevKAPXpUJ/wiQJssq1/Wo+4YD31YoqQJgcPkBH/k5sjj8QM0koai60C
         juyPP/3STyDu5RJhoXZTEHvd1rR6UJxd3+GVc=
Received: by 10.229.241.78 with SMTP id ld14mr7317138qcb.121.1293118447697;
 Thu, 23 Dec 2010 07:34:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.86.200 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 07:33:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20101217091950.GA28557@melkinpaasi.cs.helsinki.fi>
References: <20101217091950.GA28557@melkinpaasi.cs.helsinki.fi>
From: Lukasz Stafiniak <lukstafi@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 16:33:47 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTimLbfFf-w4KApOKqVRM98zUCrmSACZ8wDmwapPV@mail.gmail.com>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Unimplemented modules as top-level signatures

Interesting question. Lack of response on the mailing list means
agreement that this is an OK style?

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Lauri Alanko <la@iki.fi> wrote:
> A minor annoyance in OCaml is that although you can (and must) put
> each top-level module into its own file, there is no corresponding
> mechanism for defining module types on their own: you always have to
> put a "module type" definition inside another module, which
> complicates scoping, and with standard tools adds an extra level of
> indentation to the signature definition.
>
> However, with 3.12 there is solution of sorts: write the signature
> definition in foo.mli without an accompanying foo.ml, and then refer
> to the signature as "module type of Foo".
>
> Is this horrible style? Are there some pitfalls I should be aware of?
> Or are there better solutions to my desire to avoid nested scoping?
> Top-level functors would also be nice to have... :)