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 PAA14878; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:15:20 +0200 (MET DST) 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 PAA14987 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:15:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail7.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.207]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h5QDFIj14570 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:15:18 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (qmail 16291 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2003 13:15:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO grace.speakeasy.org) ([216.254.0.2]) (envelope-sender ) by mail7.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 26 Jun 2003 13:15:16 -0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:15:16 -0700 (PDT) From: brogoff@speakeasy.net To: Xavier Leroy cc: "caml-list@inria.fr" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Recursive modules and polymorphic recursion In-Reply-To: <20030626141415.B11992@pauillac.inria.fr> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam: no; 0.00; brogoff:01 caml-list:01 recursion:01 publi:01 elt:01 3.07:01 speakeasy:01 rec:01 polymorphic:01 modules:02 module:03 wrote:03 recursive:03 hack:03 rarely:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Xavier Leroy wrote: > As the design document explains > (http://pauillac.inria.fr/~xleroy/publi/recursive-modules-note.pdf), > the current implementation of recursive modules is such that a definition > module rec A : SIGA = StructA > is accepted only if all value components of SIGA are functions. I guess I was thrown by the fact that the similar module rec ASet : Set.S with type elt = A.t = Set.Make(A) and A : (* ... etc ...*) is accepted, and by the fact that I rarely comprehend this kind of stuff by reading alone, but instead have to read/hack/ask/read/... > The decision to integrate recursive modules in 3.07 was taken on the > grounds that imperfect recursive modules are still better than no > recursive modules at all. Be patient: perfection takes time. Of course. I'm glad that decision was taken, and I think what's there is pretty good, even if imperfect. I expect that perfection would take forever, which will certainly exhaust anyone's patience. -- 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