Thinking about it, there's at least one case where mli files are not so useful: When you have several modules which must all comply with a certain module type. In that case, all the mli files would be identical, and a modification of the module type would necessitate to change all the .mli. What would be the best way to handle that situation? I was thinking of making an inner module, coerce it to the desired type, and open it afterwards, but the resulting module would still have a ref to the inner module in its type. E.g.: in the file mymodule.ml -----------------------8<------------------- module Inner = ( struct (* implementation *) end : Sig) open Inner -----------------------8<------------------- and the file sig.mli would be the required module type. didier 2012/10/30 Francois Berenger > Hello, > > Here is my stupid question of the day: > what's the use of those .mli files? > > Is it just to separate interface from implementation > so that the implementation of a module can be changed > without clients of its interface to have to bother? > > Does it make compilation of large software faster > by allowing for more parallelization and maybe later on avoiding to > recompile some parts? > > Usually I program in a pure functional style, so my modules > don't carry an internal state. > I feel like "if someone want to re-use a function, so be it". > If I really want to hide a function that I am afraid people > may call in an incorrect manner, I declare it internally > to some public function and use it correctly. > > Also, maybe I only work on toy-size OCaml projects. So, I never bothrered > to create any .mli file. > I would like to know if I should bother about them. > > Thanks a lot, > Francois. > > -- > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: > https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/**arc/caml-list > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/**ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-**bugs >