From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id WAA17652; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 22:15:14 +0200 (MET DST) 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 WAA17060 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 22:15:13 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lcavpc19.epfl.ch (lcavpc19.epfl.ch [128.178.8.56]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g8FKFC921350 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 22:15:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (henridf@localhost) by lcavpc19.epfl.ch (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g8FKFAC29067 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 22:15:10 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: lcavpc19.epfl.ch: henridf owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 22:15:10 +0200 (CEST) From: Henri Dubois-Ferriere X-X-Sender: Reply-To: Henri DF To: Subject: [Caml-list] mutually referencing compilation units Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk hello, given the banality i'm guessing this question has been asked before .. but i couldn't find any clear statement related to this inthe archive. So: Is the fact that two mutually referencing units can't be compiled supposed to be a Good Thing? It seems to be a consequence of the fact that order of .cmo's is relevant, and when that design decision was made i guess the restriction it entailed on mutual reference was not considered to be a problem. Thanks Henri DF ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners