On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 10:41:20AM -0400, Mike Furr wrote:
> I like this for most packages, but I think we should have an exception for
> -pack'd modules. Maintaining the .mli for the packed module of a large
> project is quite a bit of (redundant) work and removes some of the benefit
> of using pack in the first place. How about if we allow a .cmi to not have
> a corresponding .mli iff it is a packed module and all of its sub-modules
> have .mli's.
Sure, I think the idea behind this proposed rule was just to ensure no
interfaces were shipped with no mli at all. For packed modules I'm fine
to have only sub-modules .mli. Any idea on how to better formulate the
rule (without resorting to exceptions as in the quoted text above)?
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature