[erlang-questions] Why we need a -module() attribute?

[Vlad Dumitrescu]

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Richard A. O'Keefe <ok@REDACTED>
wrote:

>
>
> On 25/02/16 10:29 pm, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
>
>>
>> If the compiler is supposed to read the archive, then you mean that the
>> source files should be packed in one?
>>
> "Should" is up to the programmer.  What I'm advocating is "could".
>
> I can see the use for beam files to be distributed this way, but I'm not
>> sure about sources - if they are supposed to get edited, then we have to
>> unpack them anyway;
>>
> Well, if it comes to that, there's no reason why the *editor* couldn't
> work out of
> a zip file.  Try this: I get the Erlang/OTP sources, and I love that, and
> I *could*
> edit them if I needed to.  Indeed, on very rare occasions I have. But most
> of
> the time I *don't* edit them.  Or to put it another way, I have a project
> in another
> language.  Out of nearly 1800 files, nearly 45 of them have been changed in
> the last week.  That's one file out of 40.  Why should 39 files be
> just so I can edit 1 out of 40?
>
> Even now, if you want to edit a file, you have to unpack IT, not THEM.
>
> Then too, there are lots of things one can do with source files besides
> compile
> and edit them.


I see your point. For me a directory is easier to work with than an
archive, when it comes to source code, but it's just me.

regards,
vlad


>
> if not, then beams are just as good.
>>
> I explicitly indicated that OASES files might point to things other than
> modules.
> I believe it to already be the case that people are allowed to put other
> things
> than modules in .ez files.
>
>
>
>
>
> Or am I missing something?
>>
>> best regards,
>> Vlad
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20160226/9ef104d0/attachment.htm>