From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68C1CBBBB for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:55:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.5]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k1L3tpLl011102 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:55:52 +0100 Received: (qmail 5369 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2006 03:55:50 -0000 Received: from shell2.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.116.3]) (envelope-sender ) by mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 21 Feb 2006 03:55:50 -0000 Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:55:50 -0800 (PST) From: brogoff To: Nathan Cooprider Cc: ocaml_beginners@yahoogroups.com, caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Rephrasing of dynamic module selection problem In-Reply-To: <43FA64C8.1050704@cs.utah.edu> Message-ID: References: <43FA64C8.1050704@cs.utah.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 43FA8F47.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 run-time:01 statically:01 compile-time:01 ocaml:01 mls:01 ocaml:01 nathan:98 selectable:98 wrote:01 dynamically:01 functions:01 speakeasy:01 modules:01 modules:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Nathan Cooprider wrote: > So I am still trying to get modules to be dynamically (run-time) > selectable instead of only statically (compile-time). You can't do that in OCaml. Why don't you use objects or records to hold the functions, instead of modules? There are other MLs where you can pack a module into some manipulable entity, but OCaml isn't one of them. Once you go there I wonder why not just remove all differences between modules and records, since the two things seem very similar. -- Brian