From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.6.10/8.6.6) id OAA11252 for caml-redistribution; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 14:04:14 +0200
Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id PAA13337 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 15:10:51 +0100
From: pbrisset@eis.enac.dgac.fr
Received: from margaux.inria.fr (margaux.inria.fr [128.93.8.2]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id PAA02854 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 15:10:29 +0100 (MET)
Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by margaux.inria.fr (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id PAA28839 for <caml-list@margaux.inria.fr>; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 15:10:50 +0100
Received: from apollo12.eis.enac.dgac.fr (apollo12.eis.enac.dgac.fr [192.70.3.82]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id PAA02850 for <caml-list@margaux.inria.fr>; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 15:10:27 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199603291410.PAA02850@concorde.inria.fr>
Received: from apoge.eis.enac.dgac.fr by apollo12.eis.enac.dgac.fr with SMTP
	(1.37.109.4/17.1) id AA08814; Fri, 29 Mar 96 15:10:45 +0100
Received: by apoge.eis.enac.dgac.fr
	(1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA10154; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 15:10:46 +0100
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 15:10:46 +0100
To: caml-list@margaux.inria.fr
Subject: Re: One more question about the module system
Sender: weis


...
> (* m1.ml *)
>         module Make(L: MTYPE_L)(Some_M2: MTYPE_M2) = struct
>           open L
>           open Some_M2
>           ...
>         end
> (* m.ml *)
>         module Make(L: MTYPE_L)(Some_M1: MTYPE_M1) = struct
>           open L
>           open Some_M1
>           ...
>         end
> 
> (You will probably need to express sharing constraints between type
> components of the parameters. Express them with "with type" or
> "with module", e.g.
>         module Make(L: MTYPE_L)(Some_M2: MTYPE_M2 with type t = L.t) ...
> )
> 
> Then do all the functor applications in a "main" file:
> 
>         module L = L1 (* or L2 *)
>         module M2 = M2.Make(L)
>         module M1 = M1.Make(L)(M2)
>         module M = M.Make(L)(M1)
> 
> The advantage of this approach is that you can also provide
> "hand-made" M1 or M2 modules (not produced by application of M1.Make
> or M2.Make), so you get more flexibility. The disadvantage is
> increased verbosity and number of declarations needed.
> 
> - Xavier Leroy

 I eventually found the same solution. Because I wanted a single "big"
module, I wrote:

	(* m.ml *)
	module Make(L: SIG_L) = struct
	  module M2 = M2.Make(L)
	  open M2
	  module M1 = M1.Make(L, M2)
	  open M1
	  ...

 I also checked that runtime efficiency is not modified by all these
functorizations.

--Pascal