From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id LAA24444 for caml-red; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:36:03 +0100 (MET)
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA30552 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:09:43 +0100 (MET)
Received: from mrwall.kal.com (mrwall.kal.com [194.193.14.236])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with SMTP id f0FE9gP23446
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:09:42 +0100 (MET)
Received: from mrwall.kal.com [194.193.14.236]
	(HELO localhost)
	by mrwall.kal.com (AltaVista Mail V2.0J/2.0J BL25J listener)
	id 0000_0045_3a63_04e6_e99a;
	Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:10:46 +0000
Received: from somewhere by smtpxd
Message-ID: <3145774E67D8D111BE6E00C0DF418B663B15F0@nt.kal.com>
From: Dave Berry <dave@kal.com>
To: Brian Rogoff <bpr@best.com>, Claudio Russo <crusso@microsoft.com>
Cc: Dave Berry <dave@kal.com>, Alain Frisch <frisch@clipper.ens.fr>,
        Caml list <caml-list@inria.fr>, kfl@it.edu, sestoft@dina.kvl.dk
Subject: RE: first class, recursive, mixin modules (was: RE: first class m
   odules)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:13:29 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr

----Original Message-----
From: Brian Rogoff [mailto:bpr@best.com]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 22:16
>That's no problem for me. Dave, in the case you mentioned, do you think
>this would this be problematic? I couldn't guess from your description.

This example has been bugging me all weekend; I can't reconstruct what it
was.  I think we wanted to write a pair of recursive functor applications,
viz:

structure S1 = F1 (S2)
and S2 = F2 (S1);

but I find it hard to believe that the two functors already existed in a
form suitable to apply this way.  More likely, I suspect, was that we wanted
to make the minimum modification to each module hierarchy to put them into
this form.  In particular, we wanted to avoid having to extract a file to be
shared at the bottom of the two hierarchies, on the grounds that this would
break the abstractions we had set up.

So what I would like from a recursive module feature is the ability to
separately compile two functors and then mutually apply them, as above.  (Or
some equivalent using forward declarations, perhaps).  I realise that in
separately compiling the two functors I might produce a less efficient
representation for the datatypes that are split across the two functors, but
I could live with that.

Dave.