[erlang-questions] Reified environments (was: Re: Package Support/Use)

Dominic Williams <>
Tue Nov 14 22:45:26 CET 2006


Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:

> I've been asked what I meant when I talked about reifying
> module environments and having more than one of them.  You
> can think of this message as a *draft* description.

It took me a while to get to grips with your proposal, but I
think the overall concept is brilliant.

Thomas Lindgren wrote:

> At this point, it strikes me that I'd actually like to see
> some requirements. The take-home point might be: "So, what
> functionality do we expect our reified environment or
> packaging system to provide?"

Personally, I had these stories in mind:

- no need to change existing code

- module names shouldn't be cluttered with non-design parts
  just to avoid potential future name clashes

- actual name clashes may be resolved easily when they
  actually occur

- possible to group related modules into a common context, within
  which the context name does not need to be explicited

Richard's proposal nicely fits all of these, I think.

I had been elaborating a different proposal, so I'll try and
finish it anyway, at least for the sake of comparison.

Regards,

Dominic Williams
http://www.dominicwilliams.net

----






More information about the erlang-questions mailing list