Re: [Caml-list] Unimplemented modules as top-level signatures

[Lukasz Stafiniak <lukstafi@gmail.com>]

Interesting question. Lack of response on the mailing list means
agreement that this is an OK style?

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Lauri Alanko <la@iki.fi> wrote:
> A minor annoyance in OCaml is that although you can (and must) put
> each top-level module into its own file, there is no corresponding
> mechanism for defining module types on their own: you always have to
> put a "module type" definition inside another module, which
> complicates scoping, and with standard tools adds an extra level of
> indentation to the signature definition.
>
> However, with 3.12 there is solution of sorts: write the signature
> definition in foo.mli without an accompanying foo.ml, and then refer
> to the signature as "module type of Foo".
>
> Is this horrible style? Are there some pitfalls I should be aware of?
> Or are there better solutions to my desire to avoid nested scoping?
> Top-level functors would also be nice to have... :)