Okay, thank you. That’s very helpful.
@yawaramin, part of my motivation for asking this is a comment you made in an older post that many small modules (as Haskell has many small typeclasses) would not be idiomatic for OCaml because it has subtyping. So, I want to ask you a loosely related question. Next priority for OCaml? - #120 by yawaramin
I understand what you’re saying here. I am wondering like, rather than constructing many small modules on the fly, because OCaml has module subtyping, do you think it would be more idiomatic to just infer large modules which are declared to implement a signature by way of an explicit include statement?
(There’s some difficult technical questions here that I’m setting aside as I don’t know how to address them)