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 GAA15954; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 06:28:40 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 GAA15648 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 06:28:39 +0100 (MET) From: brogoff@speakeasy.net Received: from grace.speakeasy.org (grace.speakeasy.org [216.254.0.2]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id h2G5Sbf12767 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 06:28:38 +0100 (MET) Received: (qmail 10119 invoked by uid 36130); 16 Mar 2003 05:28:36 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Mar 2003 05:28:36 -0000 Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 21:28:36 -0800 (PST) To: "caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr" Subject: Module recursion (Was Re: [Caml-list] Re: Haskell-like syntax) In-Reply-To: <20030315105846.GA28233@fichte.ai.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam: no; 0.00; brogoff:01 recursion:01 caml-list:01 haskell-like:01 functor:01 admittedly:01 workarounds:01 impure:01 ocaml:01 speakeasy:01 syntax:02 mottl:02 modules:02 module:03 typing:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Markus Mottl wrote: > Furthermore, the "mutually recursive modules"-problem is more > of a typing problem than one of compilation. The most annoying (to me) case where the lack of module recursion is really hits is the problem of wanting type declarations and functor instantiations in a recursive relationship. If this problem, which seems like more of a compilation problem than a typing problem, were fixed, I don't think I'd care that much about having a general recursive module facility. I can live with the (admittedly sometimes ugly) workarounds in other cases where module recursion is desirable. That's not to say I wouldn't like or use a general recursive module feature, but the full problem seems awfully hard in a (strict, impure) language like ML and I doubt that I'll see it in OCaml before I retire. -- Brian ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners