From: Yaron Minsky <yminsky@gmail.com>
To: Markus Mottl <markus.mottl@gmail.com>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] "with module" surprises
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 12:26:36 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BANLkTimBEkg7wQHo6k7xjWELxFdB9d9Bgg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimAASzV3nVkHoN5whTKFjKqJ6i6yg@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3826 bytes --]
I agree that specializing modules is a reasonable thing to do in general.
But that's not what I think the "with" syntax is usually for. It's usually
for adding sharing constraints, and this kind of modification of a module is
not the same thing as adding a constraint. Note that the following code
fails, as I think it should:
module type S' = sig end
with type t = int
Do you by any chance have a use-case that you think benefits from these
semantics?
y
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Markus Mottl <markus.mottl@gmail.com>wrote:
> The current semantics seems to make sense to me. E.g.
>
> module type M' = sig type t end
>
> specifies that M' needs a type t. It doesn't say that a module
> matching this signature needs to keep t abstract. You can hence
> specialize this signature using "with" to e.g. require that it be an
> "int".
>
> Module constraints work similarly. If a signature is empty, this
> doesn't mean that a module matching it must not contain anything,
> rather the opposite: any module can match it. You can again
> specialize the signature using "with" to require further entries. The
> module passed to "with" only needs to match the first signature, which
> is trivially true in this case. Its own (possibly inferred) signature
> will then specialize the previous signature, potentially adding more
> entries.
>
> A maybe more intuitive way to think about this is following: in OCaml
> you can only make things more strict, never less strict. An empty
> signature is less strict (can be matched by more modules) than a
> non-empty one. Hence extending it is the right "direction".
>
> Markus
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:27, Yaron Minsky <yminsky@janestreet.com> wrote:
> > I've gotten bitten recently by the semantics of "with module", and after
> > getting an explanation about how this seems to work in OCaml, I'm now
> > deeply confused. Here's the example I was shown:
> >
> > module M = struct
> > let x = 13
> > end
> >
> > module type S = sig
> > module M' : sig end
> > end
> > with module M' = M
> >
> > The inferred types for this will be:
> >
> > module M : sig val x : int end
> > module type S = sig module M' : sig val x : int end end
> >
> > Whereas I would have expected this:
> >
> > module M : sig val x : int end
> > module type S = sig module M' : sig end end
> >
> > In other words, the "with module" constraint has added new structure to
> > the signature S, rather than just adding constraints. This strikes me
> > as deeply strange, and indeed, has caused a bunch of head-scratching
> > here when using "with module". Is this a bug? Or is this really the
> > desired semantics. My understanding is that in SML, "with module"
> > simply adds in a bunch of type-level sharing constraints. From that
> > point of view, this behavior is pretty surprising.
> >
> > Not only that, it's what the OCaml manual says. From section 6.10.4
> >
> > The constraint [module module-path = extended-module-path] adds type
> > equations to all type components of the sub-structure denoted by
> > [module-path], making them equivalent to the corresponding type
> > components of the structure denoted by [extended-module-path].
> >
> > y
> >
> > --
> > Yaron Minsky
> >
> > --
> > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives:
> > https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list
> > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Markus Mottl http://www.ocaml.info markus.mottl@gmail.com
>
>
> --
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives:
> https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5406 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-09 16:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-05-09 14:27 Yaron Minsky
2011-05-09 15:12 ` Markus Mottl
2011-05-09 16:26 ` Yaron Minsky [this message]
2011-05-09 17:21 ` Markus Mottl
2011-05-09 17:33 ` Andreas Rossberg
2011-05-09 18:56 ` Markus Mottl
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=BANLkTimBEkg7wQHo6k7xjWELxFdB9d9Bgg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=yminsky@gmail.com \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
--cc=markus.mottl@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).