[erlang-questions] lists:reverse/1 as a built-in function
Mon Jan 22 15:43:37 CET 2007
On Jan 22, 2007, at 12:16 AM, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
> I didn't say that "the package naming and resolution scheme" was
> CONFUSING. It's just inside-out, and as a result far clumsier than
> it ever needed to be. (The same applies to the Erlang imitation of
Well, if that's the case, then would it make any difference if the
proposal were modified so that the package naming scheme is reversed?
So that instead of importing, say, erlang.lang.lists, we import
lists.lang.erlang? Or maybe would you rather have just a flat package
I really don't understand why the package naming scheme is inside-out
-- it only looks that way to me when compared to domain names. To me,
it's reasonable to have the package naming scheme reflect the
directory structure. I don't know any directory structure that uses,
say "lib" first, then "src" and then the name of the application --
they use app/src/lib for the source code to app's library.
If you could elaborate on what you find inside-out and clumsy, then
maybe the proposal could be modified. But I'm still not sure what
concrete objections there are.
More information about the erlang-questions