Document our extensions

ocaml/jane/doc/include-functor.md

@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
+# The `include functor` extension
+
+The `include functor` extension eliminates a common source of boilerplate when
+defining modules that include the results of functors.  It adds the module item
+form `include functor F`, where `F` must be a functor whose parameter can be
+"filled in" with the previous contents of the module.  For example, you can now
+write this:
+
+```ocaml
+module M = struct
+  type t = ...
+  [@@deriving compare, sexp]
+
+  include functor Comparable.Make
+end
+```
+
+Traditionally, this would have required defining an inner structure `T` just to
+have something the functor can be applied to:
+
+```ocaml
+module M = struct
+  module T = struct
+    type t = ...
+    [@@deriving compare, sexp]
+  end
+
+  include T
+  include Comparable.Make(T)
+end
+```
+
+These two code fragments behave identically, except that in the first case the
+module `M` won't have a submodule `T`.
+
+The feature can also be used in signatures:
+
+```ocaml
+module type F = functor (T : sig ... end) -> Comparable.S with type t = T.t
+
+module type S = sig
+  type t
+  [@@deriving compare, sexp]
+
+  include functor F
+end
+```
+
+This behaves as if we had written:
+
+```ocaml
+module type S = sig
+  type t
+  [@@deriving compare, sexp]
+
+  include Comparable.S with type t := t
+end
+```
+
+Currently it's uncommon to define functor module types like `F` (there's no such
+module type in `Comparable`, for example).  However, you can get the module type
+of a functor directly with `module type of`, so the previous signature could
+equivalently be written:
+
+```ocaml
+module type S = sig
+  type t
+  [@@deriving compare, sexp]
+
+  include functor module type of Comparable.Make
+end
+```
+
+## Details and Limitations
+
+This extension is not available in the upstream compiler, so publicly
+released code should not use it.  We plan to upstream it in the
+future.
+
+To include a functor `F`, it must have a module type of the form:
+
+```ocaml
+  F : S1 -> S2
+```
+
+or
+
+```ocaml
+  F : S1 -> () -> S2
+```
+
+where `S1` and `S2` are signatures.
+
+Currently, `include functor` cannot be used in the signatures of recursive
+modules.  It may be possible to lift this restriction in the future, if there is
+sufficient demand.

ocaml/jane/doc/labeled-tuples.md

@@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
+# Labeled tuples
+
+The *labeled tuples* extension allows you to label tuple elements.  It is
+conceptually dual to labeled function arguments, allowing you to give a helpful
+name to constructed values where labeled function arguments permit giving a
+helpful name to parameters.
+
+Here is a motivating example
+where we want to compute two values from a list and be careful
+not to mix them up:
+
+```ocaml
+let sum_and_product ints =
+  let init = ~sum:0, ~product:1 in
+  List.fold_left ints ~init ~f:(fun (~sum, ~product) elem ->
+    let sum = elem + sum in
+    let product = elem * product in
+    ~sum, ~product)
+```
+
+This example shows the use of labeled tuples in types and patterns.  They may be
+punned like record elements / function arguments.
+
+In types, tuple labels are written similarly to function argument labels.  For
+example, the function `f` in the previous example has the type:
+
+```ocaml
+(sum:int * product:int) -> int -> sum:int * product:int
+```
+
+Labeled tuples are useful anytime you want to use names to explain or
+disambiguate the elements of a tuple, but declaring a new record feels too
+heavy.  As another example, consider this function from `Core_unix` which
+creates a pipe with descriptors for reading and writing:
+
+```ocaml
+val pipe : ?close_on_exec:bool -> unit -> File_descr.t * File_descr.t
+```
+
+Which is which?  While it's possible declaring a new record might be best in
+this case, we can now use labeled tuples:
+
+```ocaml
+val pipe : ?close_on_exec:bool -> unit -> read:File_descr.t * write:File_descr.t
+```
+
+Tuples may be partially labeled, which can be useful when some elements of the
+tuple share a type and need disambiguation, but others don't.  For example:
+```ocaml
+type min_max_avg = min:int * max:int * float
+```
+
+## Reordering and partial patterns
+
+Like records, labeled tuple patterns may be reordered or partial.  The compiler
+only supports reordering / partial matching when it knows the type of the
+pattern from its context.
+
+So, for example, we can write:
+```ocaml
+# let lt = ~x:0, ~y:42;;
+val lt : x:int * y:int = (~x:0, ~y:42)
+
+# let twice_y = let ~y, .. = lt in y * 2;;
+val twice_y : int = 84
+```
+
+When the type is not known (in the same sense that we require a type to be known
+to disambiguate among constructors), the compiler will reject a partial pattern.  For
+example, this program
+
+```ocaml
+let get_y t =
+  let ~y, .. = t in
+  y
+```
+
+is rejected with this error:
+
+```
+File "foo.ml", line 2, characters 8-14:
+2 |     let ~y, .. = t in
+            ^^^^^^
+Error: Could not determine the type of this partial tuple pattern.
+```
+
+This example could be fixed by adding a type annotation to the function's
+parameter.
+
+Labels may also be repeated in a tuple, and unlabeled elements can be thought of
+as all sharing the same unique label.  When matching on such a tuple, the first
+occurence of a label in the pattern is bound to the first corresponding label in
+the value, and so on.  As a result, it's also now possible to partially match on
+an unlabeled tuple to retrieve the first few elements.
+
+## Limitations
+
+Parentheses are necessary to disambiguate functions types with labeled arguments
+from function types with labeled tuple arguments when the first element of the
+tuple has a label.  `ocamlformat` will handle this for you.
+
+Unlike records, reordering is not supported in labeled tuple expressions, even
+when the type is known. This is like how the function definition for a function
+with labeled arguments must bind the arguments in the same order as the type.
+
+Labeled tuples do not support projection (extracting an element of the tuple
+by label).
+
+Structure-level let bindings do not allow reordering / partial matching as
+flexibly as expression-level let bindings.  For example, this program does not
+typecheck:
+
+```ocaml
+module M = struct
+  let lt = ~x:0, ~y:42
+  let ~y, .. = lt
+end
+```
+
+It results in the error:
+
+```
+File "foo.ml", line 3, characters 6-12:
+3 |   let ~y, .. = lt
+          ^^^^^^
+Error: Could not determine the type of this partial tuple pattern.
+```

ocaml/jane/doc/module-strengthening.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+# The `module strengthening` extension
+
+What is the type of module `M` in this tiny program?
+
+```ocaml
+module type S = sig type t end
+
+module M : S
+```
+
+If you said `S` then you are only partially correct: we also need to keep track
+of the fact that all type declarations inside it (just `t` in this example) come
+from `M`. So the type that the compiler infers is actually stronger:
+
+```ocaml
+sig type t = M.t end
+```
+
+We call this type "`S` strengthened with `M`". It can be written out explicitly
+as above and this is, in fact, the only way to write it without `-extension
+module_strengthening`. The new extension allows this type to be written as `S
+with M`.
+
+The main motivation for this work are compiler performance improvements, which
+use this new form internally.