On 11/09/2011 02:29 AM, Cedric Cellier wrote:
For some reasons though, despite functors being one of the greatest
strength of the language, we do seam shy to use, recommand or brag
about them. I wonder if this is due to the lack of proper documentation ?
I don't think there is a lack of
Hi,
I'm trying to create a mockup module to replace a network module when doing
testing.
The application consists of basically 3 parts. Some user interaction. This
calls some logic of the application, and the logic module might need to
call some other functions over the network. For testing I
I was hoping not to have to change the interfaces of the application. Most
of the application is already written and the testing was just an
afterthought :-(
But it might not be that much that need to be changed. I'll give it a shot.
Thanks
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Gabriel Scherer
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Gabriel Scherer
gabriel.sche...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want some module of your system to be parametrized by another
module (to be able to pass either a concrete module or a mockup
module), you should use a functor.
And if you don't want to pollute your entire
You can have a look at
http://www.ocamlpro.com/code/2011-08-10-ocaml-pack-functors.html
It describes how to use either a patched version of OCaml or some external
tools to automatically functorize modules to solve your problems.
--
Thomas
On Nov 8, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Hans Ole Rafaelsen wrote:
And if you don't want to pollute your entire code with functor when
it's in fact for testing and not part of the logic of the application,
Functor seams the way to go here.
The use of this technique as envisaged here is hardly invading, and comes with
many advantages :
Functors help
