[Ur] Recursive modules?

[Adam Chlipala]

Fredrik Roos wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Adam Chlipala 
> <adamc at impredicative.com <mailto:adamc at impredicative.com>> wrote:
>
>     It occurs to me that it might be not-so-scary to support recursive
>     modules that don't use recursion to define types.  Maybe I'll try
>     it some time.
>
>
> What if you required that functions that are referenced recursively be 
> explicitly type-annotated and/or only be referenced by the url 
> function, or the link attribute on <a> tags. Would that make it 
> simpler to implement?

I don't think so.  If modules only contain function definitions, then 
it's easy to fuse together multiple modules into a single 
mutually-recursive function group.