Re: [Sml-implementers] extensions to SML

[John H. R. <jh...@re...>]

In message <C70...@EX...>, Robert 
Harper writes:
>
...
> 
> 1. Standardization of a separate compilation mechanism.  This would entail
> defining what are compilation units, including how imports and exports are
> described, and what is the semantics of linking.  At a high level this
> should not be exceptionally hard to work out, but the devil is in the
> details.  For example, since interfaces for compilation units cannot be
> accurately expressed in the language, there is a fundamental distinction
> between "true" separate compilation (with specified interfaces for imports)
> and incremental recompilation (with inferred signatures obtained by
> scheduling the elaboration of units in dependency order).

I think the debate about "true" separate compilation is a Red Herring.  The
important problem is to have a standard mechanism for specifying how to
build libraries and applications from sources.

If we had such a mechanism, then we could have substantial amounts
of library code available to all implementations for a fairly small
amount of work.

	- John