[erlang-questions] Why do we need modules at all?

[Joe Armstrong]

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Anthony Ramine <nox@REDACTED> wrote:

>
> Le 24 mai 2011 à 14:45, Joe Armstrong a écrit :
>
> > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Max Lapshin <max.lapshin@REDACTED>
> wrote:
> > Very strange topic for me.
> >
> > I'd like to know if there will be hierarchial modules in Erlang,
> > because tree of packages is a rather good idea:
> >
> > No it's not - this has been the subject of long and heated discussion and
> is
> > why packages are NOT in Erlang - many people - myself included - dislike
> > the idea of hierarchical namespaces. The *dot* in the name has no
> semantics
> > it's just a separator. The name could equally well be
> encoders.mpg.erlyvideo
> > or mpg.applications.erlvideo.encoder - there is no logical way to
> organise the
> > package name and it does not scale -
>
> packages are NOT in Erlang? Then the related code should be removed because
> erl.lang.number:plus(1, 1) definitely works.
>

Yes - this is an experiment unapproved feature which could be removed at any
time.

This is how we do things - we add experimental and undocumented features
and reserve the right to remove them at any time in the future. Packages are
not
officially documented and thus not officially supported.


>
> Also, I think the Haskell guys would disagree about packages not scaling.
>
> --
> Anthony Ramine
> Dev:Extend
> http://dev-extend.eu
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20110524/8fe8b52b/attachment.htm>