Re: [Caml-list] Type constraints

[Damien Doligez <damien.doligez@inria.fr>]

On 7 Dec 2004, at 22:43, Alain Frisch wrote:

> Damien Doligez wrote:
>
>> So the answer to your original question is: the type is not 
>> generalized
>> because in some cases the let-module construct is not safely 
>> polymorphic.

[...]

> So I don't understand why the same cannot apply to local modules. If 
> the let-module-in were declared "safe" for the value restriction, 
> shouldn't
>
> let module M = struct let v = ref [] end in M.v
>
> yield a non-generalized type for the same reason as for the non-local
> case (and not because of the value restriction) ?

Hmmm...  Now I don't know whether it's safe or not, and I don't know
whether someone checked its safety before excluding it from the value
restriction code...

-- Damien