[erlang-questions] Package Support/Use

[Eric Merritt]

So package names and module names are semantically equivalent. These
are both solutions to the namespace issue. The namespace problem isn't
that bad and we will never have the function name collision problem of
C. However, even module name collisions can become annoying as more
and more open source code becomes available. Thats actually what
really worries me. This will never be a problem for large proprietary
code bases but it can very well be a problem for the open source
community that is currently building around erlang. Granted there is
always ability to use the <prefix>_ convention and I do. However, this
isn't anything more then a hack and not even an elegant one at that.
Package names offer a well understood and well tested solution to this
problem. They are even in the language right now, but their
unsupported (going away any time) status makes them unusable.

So if packages aren't palatable to everyone what solution is.

On 10/31/06, user <kalap.kabat@REDACTED> wrote:
> Sean Hinde <sean.hinde <at> gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > So then we should have uniquely named source code
> > files anyway. The only benefit of Packages becomes lost.
> >
>
> Well, if you look closer you'll see the listed solutions only require unique
> *path* names and that's not the same thing.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>