[erlang-questions] lists:reverse/1 as a built-in function

[Robert Baruch]

On Jan 22, 2007, at 12:16 AM, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:

> I didn't say that "the package naming and resolution scheme" was
> CONFUSING.  It's just inside-out, and as a result far clumsier than
> it ever needed to be.  (The same applies to the Erlang imitation of  
> it.)

Well, if that's the case, then would it make any difference if the  
proposal were modified so that the package naming scheme is reversed?  
So that instead of importing, say, erlang.lang.lists, we import  
lists.lang.erlang? Or maybe would you rather have just a flat package  
namespace?

I really don't understand why the package naming scheme is inside-out  
-- it only looks that way to me when compared to domain names. To me,  
it's reasonable to have the package naming scheme reflect the  
directory structure. I don't know any directory structure that uses,  
say "lib" first, then "src" and then the name of the application --  
they use app/src/lib for the source code to app's library.

If you could elaborate on what you find inside-out and clumsy, then  
maybe the proposal could be modified. But I'm still not sure what  
concrete objections there are.

--Rob