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

[Anthony Ramine]

Le 24 mai 2011 à 16:50, Joe Armstrong a écrit :

> 
> 
> 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. 

Well then, forgive me for this little offtopic but you seem to know what is unapproved
and what is unfinished. Are structs - not your proper structs but the commented-out
production found in erl_parse.yrl struct -> atom tuple - an unapproved feature or an
unfinished feature?

Regards,


--
Anthony Ramine
Dev:Extend
http://dev-extend.eu