[erlang-questions] Why do we need modules at all?
Tue May 24 17:05:34 CEST 2011
Not guilty - I've no idea actually - probably an unfinished experiment ...
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Anthony Ramine <> wrote:
> Le 24 mai 2011 à 16:50, Joe Armstrong a écrit :
> > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Anthony Ramine <>
> > Le 24 mai 2011 à 14:45, Joe Armstrong a écrit :
> > > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Max Lapshin <>
> > > 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 -
> > > the idea of hierarchical namespaces. The *dot* in the name has no
> > > it's just a separator. The name could equally well be
> > > 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
> > 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
> and what is unfinished. Are structs - not your proper structs but the
> production found in erl_parse.yrl struct -> atom tuple - an unapproved
> feature or an
> unfinished feature?
> Anthony Ramine
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions