Re: [Sml-implementers] Portable library descriptions, a proposal

[Stephen W. <sw...@in...>]

> This would probably be fine, but given that I found the "only
> modular bindings" restriction to be virtually incontroversial among
> users of CM (*), I do not think that being less restrictive is such
> a big deal.

I do not like the restriction.  It creates a distinction between
toplevel values/types and modules exported by the basis library that
causes me problems.  When I use SML, I want type int to be 32 bit
integers, not 31 bit integers.  So, when I use SML/NJ, I have a CM
library containing stub code that makes structure Int = Int32 and
wraps most of the basis library so that it deals with 32 bit integers,
not 31 bit.  The trouble is, when I import this library into other
libraries, the toplevel type int is still 31 bit integers, not 32 bit.
So, I find myself writing "type int = Int.int" at the top of all of my
files.  Certainly not a showstopper, but definitely annoying.