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 BAA31400; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:44:27 +0200 (MET DST) 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 BAA31332 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:44:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail1.speakeasy.net (mail1.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.201]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i7INiNmL016723 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:44:24 +0200 Received: (qmail 12250 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2004 23:44:22 -0000 Received: from shell2.speakeasy.net ([69.17.110.71]) (envelope-sender ) by mail1.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 18 Aug 2004 23:44:22 -0000 Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 16:44:22 -0700 (PDT) From: brogoff To: Kenneth Knowles cc: Shaddin Doghmi , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] including signature (mli) in struct (ml) In-Reply-To: <20040818230358.GA25660@tallman.kefka.frap.net> Message-ID: References: <4123DDB3.8010504@mitre.org> <20040818230358.GA25660@tallman.kefka.frap.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 4123E9D7.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; brogoff:01 brogoff:01 caml-list:01 mli:01 struct:01 knowles:99 2004:99 0400,:01 mli:01 speakeasy:01 wrote:03 wrote:03 annoying:03 types:03 types:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 06:52:35PM -0400, Shaddin Doghmi wrote: > > this redundancy can be annoying, is there a way to declare Aout only > > once and still be able to refer to it in b.ml ? How about including > > a.mli in a.ml somehow? something along the lines of include in C would > > do it, where including a.h in a.c would make it unnecessary to define > > something in both... > > Someone may have a more elegant solution to this, but when I have a bunch of > types that I don't want to have to repeat, I put them in a .ml file without a > corresponding .mli file. If it's just types (not exceptions) I find it a bit more suggestive to put them in a .mli file. Not much difference. -- 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