Yitzhak Mandelbaum <yitzh...@cs.princeton.edu> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Is there any "common wisdom" regarding the inclusion of optional functions in
> a module signature? The two most obvious approaches involve 1) a pair of
> boolean flag and a function, where the function raises an exception if
> unimplemented OR 2) using the option type. I see pros/cons to each approach,
> but am curious if there's any (unofficial) standard approach.
>
> Yitzhak
> -----------------------------
> Yitzhak Mandelbaum
The extunix module has a trifold solution for this:
* First there is the ExtUnix.All module that has all functions in
it. Functions that are not available raise Not_available with function
name as an argument.
* Second there is ExtUnix.All.have : string -> bool option
(** [have name]
@return indication whether function [name] is available
- [Some true] if available
- [Some false] if not available
- [None] if not known
e.g. [have "eventfd"]
*)
* Third there is ExtUnix.Specific containing only functions available on
this platform.
MfG
Goswin
--
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
