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 JAA08153 for caml-redistribution; Mon, 13 May 1996 09:54:55 +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 CAA03126 for ; Sat, 11 May 1996 02:17:03 +0200 Received: from wildtype.Stanford.EDU (wildtype.Stanford.EDU [171.65.22.207]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id CAA07071 for ; Sat, 11 May 1996 02:16:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from arc@localhost) by wildtype.Stanford.EDU (8.7.5/8.7.1) id RAA24934 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Fri, 10 May 1996 17:16:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 17:16:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Andrew Conway Message-Id: <199605110016.RAA24934@wildtype.Stanford.EDU> To: caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Subject: O'Caml & modules Sender: weis Thanks for O'caml. I haven't had a chance to try it yet, but the type system looks both interesting and useful. Remember a while back we were having a discussion on the merits of allowing local module definitions? It appears to me that these are very very similar to the constructor of an object. Does this mean that the infrastructure necessary to add local module definitions is already partially in place? If so, it could be a useful addition (although arugably one could just use an object instead of a module, but it is aesthetically unpleasing. One might want, for instance, a module giving packed-n-bit vectors, where n is a parameter to a multiply called function. One would then use an object to refer to a specific bit vector, using a function from the above mentioned module, which may get a little messy. Anyway, I just thought this would be a good idea to re-bring up this thread. Thanks again, Andrew.