Then I suggest to look at http://mlton.org/MLBasisSyntaxAndSemantics
About relations: you look for some specification language, when you state the governing rules of the methods to each other. That brings program verification of some sort. Or, some literate programming you strive for, but Real Programmers are reluctant to do that. - Gergely On 28 April 2016 at 08:08, Richard A. O'Keefe <o...@cs.otago.ac.nz> wrote: > > > On 28/04/16 5:04 PM, Gergely Buday wrote: > >> I am not sure if it matters for you but how about Standard ML modules? >> > Suffice it to say that I've been well aware of ML for a long time and have > the latest release of SML/NJ installed on my desktop and laptop machines > for a reason, think that SML's structures and functors are the bee's knees, > and no, they *don't* help with *this* issue one little bit. > > Don't believe me? > Try finding your way around /usr/local/smlnj/ckit/src/ast/build-ast.sml > (all 3105 lines of it) without a native guide. > > OK, so build-ast.sml is something of an extreme case: nearly half of the > lines of code in ckit/src/ast/ are in that one file. And I'm sure there's > good reason for that. > > There are other rather large modules in the SML/NJ distribution. > Even fairly small modules can have the same problem, where you're > just presented with a list of blobs (although blobs with types are > somewhat easier to make sense of) all looking pretty similar. > > When I say that "modules in EVERY programming language I know look > like blobs", that includes languages I *like* and *esteem*, and it > certainly includes languages with nested modules. > > People are getting sort of OK at commenting single functions. > They've got the idea about providing comments for an entire module. > But with the single exception of Smalltalk, nobody seems to do anything > about meso-scale structures. And Smalltalk just classifies the methods > of a class into groups. For example, in Pharo the methods for > SequenceableCollection are categorised as > - accessing > - comparing > - converting > - copying > - enumerating (iteration, to you) > - private > - removing > - shuffling > - sorting > - splitjoin > - testing > and then a bunch of > * extensions for package so-and-so > and the categories are partly well defined and partly ad hoc. > > But the *relations* between the methods are not stated. (For examples, > methods in the private category exist to support methods that are public. > My Smalltalk annotations already let me express that, but I suspect that > "support" isn't a simple concept.) > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PPIG Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ppig-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send an email to ppig-discuss@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
