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 KAA19768; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 10:27:16 +0100 (MET) Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA19736 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 10:27:15 +0100 (MET) Received: from shell16.ba.best.com (shell16.ba.best.com [206.184.139.148]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f2L9RDL03369 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 10:27:14 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (def6@localhost) by shell16.ba.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.sh) with ESMTP id BAA24210; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 01:27:12 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: shell16.ba.best.com: def6 owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 01:27:12 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Hecker X-Sender: def6@shell16.ba.best.com To: Patrick M Doane cc: 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 > This would mean that > module X : sig type t = int end = struct end > would be accepted, but > module X : sig type t end = struct end > would be rejected because the abstract field 't' is required but missing. > Would this proposal address all the issues you had in mind? Yep, that's what I had in mind! Chris ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr