blue storm a écrit :
Regarding your original problem, I've had the same needs and came up
with a slightly different solution : in order to avoid the additional
indirection level related to -pack (Foobar.Foo), is used a flattened
representation by adding a foobar.ml file containing only :
Hi,
Alexey Rodriguez a écrit :
My question is about how to hide modules (or parts thereof) in
an ocaml package from the outside world (users of the package).
* Add the file foobar.mli which contains the signatures of Foo and Bar
but hiding
Foo.unsafe_change. I think it could work, but I
Thanks to all who replied. I have solved my problem, but I still have
a question regarding clashing type definitions.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:40 PM, blue storm bluestorm.d...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with your packages.tgz example is that you use module
type Foo = .. in the .mli. This
Dear list,
My question is about how to hide modules (or parts thereof) in
an ocaml package from the outside world (users of the package).
I am trying to build an ocaml package with internal functionality
(types and functions)
that I do not want to expose. I have two modules in the package
The problem with your packages.tgz example is that you use module
type Foo = .. in the .mli. This gives the signature of a module type,
that is, it refers to a _module type_ defined in the implementation
file.
What you want to do here is to give the signature of a _module_, not a
module types, so
On 9/9/2009 9:00 PM, Alexey Rodriguez wrote:
My question is about how to hide modules (or parts thereof) in
an ocaml package from the outside world (users of the package).
It is not a well-known fact, but it is possible to provide an explicit
interface for the packaged module (just create an
