I agree this works around the limitation, but it does beg the question: why
is the limitation there in the first place?

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Jacques Le Normand <rathereasy@gmail.com>wrote:

> first post! let's see if anyone can do better...
>
> module type Foo = sig type t end
> module type Bar = sig type foo_t module Foo : Foo type t = foo_t   end
>
>      (* compiles *)
> let g (type a) (m : (module Foo with type t = a)) = ()
>
>    (* fails to compile with a syntax error *)
> let f (type a) (m : (module Bar with type foo_t = a)) = ()
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 3:36 AM, Yaron Minsky <yminsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> > For some reason, 1st-class modules have more restrictive "with" syntax,
> > which turns out to be a practical problem.
> >
> > The main constraint is that with constraints do not seem to be able to
> refer
> > to sub-modules.  Consider the following code snippet:
> >
> >>     module type Foo = sig type t end
> >>     module type Bar = sig module Foo : Foo end
> >>
> >>     (* compiles *)
> >>     let g (type a) (m : (module Foo with type t = a)) = ()
> >>
> >>     (* fails to compile with a syntax error *)
> >>     let f (type a) (m : (module Bar with type Foo.t = a)) = ()
> >
> > Of course, ordinary modules have no such constraint.  Any thoughts as to
> > what is going on here, and whether it can be fixed?  This has really
> > restricted designs I've been using, forcing me to flatten out structures
> > that are more naturally nested.
> >
> > y
> >
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>