François Pottier

> Could you perhaps clarify why you think it's necessary to introduce new terminology in the `Stdlib` ? I don't have a strong case, and am happy with keeping `sub`....

Hello, Here is my two cents. Regarding the proposed mechanism, I believe that it is clearly useful. I have commonly felt the need to say "please apply the functor `Foo`...

> But how would that work in signature? What problem do you see with signatures? Can't we just use `this` (or `module` or whatever concrete syntax you prefer) to designate...

> @fpottier: `include Foo(struct include this let x = 0 end)`: wait a minute, clearly `this` is the empty module in this context, right? You probably meant `this/2` ;-) You...

> In fact, rather than a keyword for the name, we might allow naming the current module This is an intriguing idea, but I don't think that it is acceptable......

I just noticed that this problem is covered by "the inspect method" in [the tutorial](https://rocq-prover.github.io/platform-docs/Tutorial_Equations_wf.html). Could one conceivably automate this trick, so that users are not required to know about...

Perhaps we could single out a few source files, in these packages, that use `cppo` in a heavy way (or in an interesting way, in some sense) and add these...

By the way, I notice that the files `*.yml` seem to mention several old OCaml versions, up to 4.07, but no newer version. Is this intended? Should we update these...

(I could also add a `Makefile` entry that runs `make test` in several local `opam` switches.)

No, I meant the files `.travis.yml` and `appveyor.yml` at the root of the `cppo` repository. (I must say that I don't know what these files are used for.)