From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Authentication-Results: plum.tunbury.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=inria.fr header.i=@inria.fr header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=dc header.b=bPJTEjt/; dkim-atps=neutral Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=192.134.164.83; helo=mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from=caml-list-owner@inria.fr; receiver=tunbury.org Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by plum.tunbury.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2683440099 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2026 14:23:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=inria.fr; s=dc; h=message-id:date:mime-version:to:references:from: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:subject:reply-to: sender:list-id:list-help:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe: list-post:list-owner:list-archive; bh=+G8mwvR/7Id5O5BqfuY8otiKb1/4fA5m+LWK7cUbaG4=; b=bPJTEjt/7JGPFm/d0LxflJXZCDBrBoV0m9bmngWBKBFcbzDPLQn3v2VH jGhbmOCJ+7AipdXRH1Axrb7td/XFBrUf1KxmvvOv70ZK4lZFOr7EH/qfM utn+96C7TTpNXqcWwrXRjh+fFZGaFAeN9A5BCPwUpr8aoMs76sgPe+ETU I=; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: V5eOx3/+TJ6PjPa96LRIrg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 7H/nKqljRXOKtLLlJz89ng== Authentication-Results: mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none; spf=SoftFail smtp.mailfrom=caml-list-owner@inria.fr; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@prod-sympa-app.inria.fr Received-SPF: SoftFail (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of caml-list-owner@inria.fr is inclined to not designate 128.93.162.27 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=128.93.162.27; receiver=mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="caml-list-owner@inria.fr"; x-sender="caml-list-owner@inria.fr"; x-conformance=spf_only; x-record-type="v=spf1"; x-record-text="v=spf1 ip4:128.93.142.0/24 ip4:192.134.164.0/24 ip4:128.93.162.160 ip4:128.93.162.3 ip4:128.93.162.88 ip4:89.107.174.7 mx ~all" Received-SPF: None (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@prod-sympa-app.inria.fr) identity=helo; client-ip=128.93.162.27; receiver=mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="caml-list-owner@inria.fr"; x-sender="postmaster@prod-sympa-app.inria.fr"; x-conformance=spf_only X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.24,224,1774306800"; d="scan'208";a="283416764" Received: from prod-sympa-app.inria.fr ([128.93.162.27]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 25 Jun 2026 16:23:21 +0200 Received: by prod-sympa-app.inria.fr (Postfix, from userid 990) id 3D4B081EFD; Thu, 25 Jun 2026 16:23:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by prod-sympa-app.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDA8581ECD for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2026 16:23:10 +0200 (CEST) X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: zUuqysB/Ry+ePoGanKDoQA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: n3jCq3qoQiWZNLxIP/jvYw== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.24,224,1774306800"; d="scan'208";a="150449811" Received: from wifi-eduroam-84-148.paris.inria.fr (HELO [128.93.84.148]) ([128.93.84.148]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Jun 2026 16:23:11 +0200 Message-ID: <6d5f115c-866d-4cc0-a102-73657778a0e2@inria.fr> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2026 16:23:04 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: caml-list@inria.fr References: <861de205-0471-4a17-b020-c0494914437b@inria.fr> Content-Language: en-US From: Samuel Vivien In-Reply-To: <861de205-0471-4a17-b020-c0494914437b@inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Modular explicits in pre-OCaml 5.5 Reply-To: Samuel Vivien X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Sequence: 19539 Errors-To: caml-list-owner@inria.fr Precedence: list Precedence: bulk Sender: caml-list-request@inria.fr X-no-archive: yes List-Id: List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Indeed. Modular explicit does not add any expressiveness to the language (and does not impact the soundness of the type system). Every program that can be written using modular explicits could have been written with a functor encoded as a first-class module. We presented this encoding in section 1.5 of this paper about modular explicits : https://hal.science/hal-05428136/document On 6/25/26 14:45, Olivier Nicole wrote: > Thanks for pointing this out. Does this mean that modular explicits, > strictly speaking, bring no additional expressivity but only a simpler > way to do these things? Or are there programs that could be expressed > with modular explicits but not with constrained module types?