Re: [Caml-list] Quizz

["Milan Stanojević" <milanst@gmail.com>]

> The main problem is not so much syntax, as the fact it would require to make
> all definitions in the Types module mutually recursive. Not only that, but
> operations like path substitution need to be mutually recursive in the same
> way. So the question is whether the small gain in flexibility is worth making the
> implementation more complex.
> (Note that an extra gain is that it becomes possible to expand a module type
> definition when leaving its scope)

In my work I mostly just wanted to be able to just do something like
(module M : Intable with type t = t), i.e just specializing existing
module type with "with type =" or "with type :=".
Is this special case any easier to implement?