[erlang-questions] Time to update programming rules?

Edwin Fine <>
Fri Sep 5 04:55:13 CEST 2008


Richard,

Please will you clarify what you mean by

(a) we should not use them because they are inside out

?

Do you mean, we should not use these facilities at all, ever, because the
design is badly flawed, or we should not use them in the way the
documentation proposes, because it's "inside out", and there's a better way?
Or both, or neither? What do you mean by "inside out"?


On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Richard A. O'Keefe <>wrote:

>
> On 5 Sep 2008, at 9:01 am, WildChild wrote:
>
> > http://www.erlang.se/doc/programming_rules.shtml
> >
> > 7.7 Module names
> >
> > Erlang has a flat module structure (i.e. there are not modules within
> > modules). We have packages!
> http://www.erlang.se/publications/packages.html
>
> Yes, but
> (a) we should not use them because they are inside out, and
> (b) packages are NOT "modules within modules".
> Poplog, Ada, and SML have modules within modules.
> Modules within modules are much more like Java nested classes
> than they are like Java packages.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> 
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20080904/2259038d/attachment.html>


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list