[ocaml-platform] on the need and design of OCaml namespaces

[Christophe TROESTLER]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:40:30 +0100, Xavier Clerc wrote:
> 
> >  Maybe this solution is not so good for libraries whose goal is to
> >  act as a "standard library" (such as Core), because the intention
> >  is to create the impression that the library is actually part of
> >  the language (I don't have the impression to use a library when I
> >  write String.length or List.map, contrary to when I write
> >  Xmlm.make_input); so I understand why Jane Street is reluctant to
> >  have Core_list.map everywhere in their code.  But would it really
> >  be a problem to have the users write "open Kaputt_abbreviations"
> >  instead of "open Kaputt.Abbreviations", or Bolt_logger.log
> >  instead of Bolt.Logger.log?
> 
> For those libraries, with few modules, it could be a decent solution.
> But for Barista (with 50+ modules), it is nice to be able to open the
> library as mentioned above. Moreover, library code is also made lighter
> by packing: in another Bolt module, "Logger.log" is sufficient (there
> is no ambiguity) while your solution would imply to write "Bolt_logger.log".
> 
> It just occurs to me that packing obviously allows (or enforces)
> "closed" namespaces: no one can add a module to the packed module.
> Is the ability to "close" a namespace something considered useful?

It seems to me that the openness of namespaces is the only feature I
have seen mentioned that modules do not have.  But is the openness of
namespaces something considered useful?  What problem does this solves?

Cheers,
C.