[erlang-questions] Current state of packaged modules: net.rtmp.decoder

[Logan, Martin]

I think adding package support in fully would be quite an undertaking.  So many of the OTP tools don't understand them and I am not entirely sure that making it so would be entirely trivial. That said, I agree that having them would be a benefit though I have never run into a conflict simply using the <prefix>_<name> convention. 

-----Original Message-----
From: erlang-questions@REDACTED [mailto:erlang-questions@REDACTED] On Behalf Of Nicholas Frechette
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 9:52 AM
To: erlang-questions@REDACTED
Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] Current state of packaged modules: net.rtmp.decoder

I would like to know as well as I enjoy working with them.
Simplifies naming greatly when one isn't afraid of naming collisions.
Moreover, I suspect that people that do encounter collisions, will use a
prefix/suffix to deal with it, in a similar way to prefixing package name
with '.'.

Erlang would benefit greatly from a stable and officially supported
namespace/package system for modules. IMO, I've been quite happy with the
current state of things with package prefix.

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 5:53 AM, Max Lapshin <max.lapshin@REDACTED> wrote:

> Hi, I can't understand why is not recommended now to use packages of
> modules. What is bad in
> using dotted names? What is the future of this feature: it will be
> developed or it will be deprecated?
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
> See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> To unsubscribe; mailto:erlang-questions-unsubscribe@REDACTED
>
>