From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id NAA23960 for caml-red; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 13:12:21 +0200 (MET DST) 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 NAA09391 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 13:23:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from post.tepkom.ru (post.tepkom.ru [195.9.10.12]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e71BMvn13978 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 13:22:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from msk@localhost) by post.tepkom.ru (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA18069 for caml-list@inria.fr.ANTIVIRUS; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:22:52 +0400 Received: from localhost (msk@localhost) by post.tepkom.ru (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA18038; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:22:43 +0400 X-Authentication-Warning: post.tepkom.ru: msk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:22:42 +0400 (MSD) From: Anton Moscal To: Jacques Garrigue cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: automatic construction of mli files In-Reply-To: <20000725101321D.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, Jacques Garrigue wrote: > Not to say that the current situation is perfect. The fact you have to > duplicate all type definitions is not so nice for instance. But for > people used to the .ml/.mli dichotomy, having both kind of information > united in a single file does not seem very attractive. I think, SML `local' is a good alternative to interfaces in the many cases: `local' allows to hide definitions from the module interface without explicit signature specification. Regards, Anton Moscal