Re: [Caml-list] Quizz

[Leo White <lpw25@cam.ac.uk>]

Milan Stanojević <milanst@gmail.com> writes:

>> The main problem is not so much syntax, as the fact it would require to make
>> all definitions in the Types module mutually recursive. Not only that, but
>> operations like path substitution need to be mutually recursive in the same
>> way. So the question is whether the small gain in flexibility is worth making the
>> implementation more complex.
>> (Note that an extra gain is that it becomes possible to expand a module type
>> definition when leaving its scope)
>
> In my work I mostly just wanted to be able to just do something like
> (module M : Intable with type t = t), i.e just specializing existing
> module type with "with type =" or "with type :=".
> Is this special case any easier to implement?

"with type t =" already works. I'm not sure, but I think that "with type
t :=" could indeed be implemented without the increased implementation
complexity that Jacques was referring to.

Regards,

Leo