From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id BAA02233; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 01:01:14 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA02195 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 01:01:13 +0100 (MET) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f2M01Cj23365 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 01:01:12 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (patrick@localhost) by fledge.watson.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f2M010L00821; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 19:01:00 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from patrick@watson.org) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 19:00:59 -0500 (EST) From: Patrick M Doane To: John Prevost cc: Chris Hecker , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] recursive modules redux, & interface files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Hi John, It seems to me that this would be perfectly legal. It is accepted by the current Ocaml language, and by the extension I proposed unless there is something I'm missing. Is this the behavior you're expecting? Patrick On 21 Mar 2001, John Prevost wrote: > >>>>> "pd" == Patrick M Doane writes: > > pd> This would mean that > > pd> module X : sig type t = int end = struct end > > pd> would be accepted, but > > pd> module X : sig type t end = struct end > > pd> would be rejected because the abstract field 't' is required > pd> but missing. > > What about "module X : sig type t end = struct type t end", where > values of the type can't actually be constructed? (Except possibly by > C code.) > > John. > ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr