Re: [Caml-list] Avoiding ml/mli code duplication

[Lauri Alanko <la@iki.fi>]

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 03:59:32PM +0100, Alain Frisch wrote:
> (** BarDefs.ml **)
> module type S = sig
>   type t
>   type u = A of t
> end
> 
> 
> (** Bar.mli **)
> include BarDefs.S
> val x: u list
> 
> 
> (** Bar.ml **)
> type t = X
> module rec S_impl : BarDefs.S with type t := t = S_impl
> include S_impl
> let x = [A X]

That's neat. You are using the recursive module trick that allows one
to convert a value-less signature into a module:
<http://ocaml.janestreet.com/?q=node/84>. Effectively, you replace my
example's functor application with signature refining.

(Incidentally, your code can simplified somewhat by moving the
signature S into the body of BarDefs.mli and then using "module type
of BarDefs" instead of "BarDefs.S".)

However, the recursive module trick seems like quite a kludge. Perhaps
there should be a "legitimized" way of producing a module with a
certain value-less signature. For instance, instead of "module rec M :
S = M" just allow "module M : S" within a module definition if S has
no values?

There's another approach to my original problem that unfortunately
doesn't seem to work. In principle, we could have:

(*** BarCore.mli ***)
type t

(*** BarCore.ml ***)
type t = X

(*** BarDefs.ml ***)
include BarCore
type u = A of t

(*** Bar.mli ***)
include module type of BarDefs
val x : u list

(*** Bar.ml ***)
include BarDefs
let x = [A X]

Except, of course, that the constructor X is not visible in Bar.ml. I
can't immediately see a way to make it visible in Bar.ml without also
making it visible in Bar.mli. BarCore would need to have a separate
"package-internal" signature that Bar.ml could use. Is there any way
to achive this?


Lauri