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

[Sylvain Le Gall <sylvain@le-gall.net>]

Hello,

On 23-12-2010, Lukasz Stafiniak <lukstafi@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting question. Lack of response on the mailing list means
> agreement that this is an OK style?
>

I don't think so. Right now:
1) 3.12 is not yet used by everyone
2) its new features are still studied (at least by me)
3) style is really a matter of taste
4) it is in the language, so no problem using it

So basically, go on, test it and give us your feedback. I doubt there
are thousand people already using this, so you will define yourself
what is right or wrong...

AFAIC, I think it is great and that you should use it.

> 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... :)
>
> -- 
> Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
> https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>
>

Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall