[erlang-questions] Reified environments (was: Re: Package Support/Use)
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
- 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.
More information about the erlang-questions