[MLton] List comprehensions?

[Wesley W. Terpstra]

On May 31, 2007, at 6:42 PM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> What most likely does break defunctorisation, though, is the  
> combination of first-class and higher-order modules.

I've finally understood what 'first-class' modules are.

Is there any good reason to support these? I can't really think of a  
good use of them except as a way to mimic OOP.

I'm also still trying to understand what these higher-order functors  
would be good for and what they do. TBH, I agree with skaller in that  
I'm not a fan of functors in the first place. Most of the places I've  
(needed to) use them, type classes would have been a better fit. Type  
classes in haskell already support something very 'functor' like: you  
can make a type class that depends on other type classes. For  
example, an Array can be compared if its elements can be.