[erlang-questions] newbie: why c.erl is special?

Richard A. O'Keefe ok@REDACTED
Thu Mar 6 01:45:16 CET 2008

> On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 12:21:30PM -0600, David Mercer wrote:
> }  If this is what everyone seems to want, why hasn't the package  
> notation
> }  caught on?
But *is* it what everyone wants?
I have argued at some length that the whole thing is back to front,  
inside out,
and even upside down.  I believe that you should be able to
  - move an entire group of closely related modules around in the  
module universe
    by changing one line in one place
  - incorporate (the façade of) a cluster of modules
    by writing one line in one place
  - be able to retrospectively bundle up a cluster of related modules
     without touching their source code
  - be able to have two versions of a cluster at the same time
     without modifying their source code
and a whole lot of things like that, which the Java-envious dotted  
names just
make harder, and I have proposed a LACE-like means of accomplishing  

Not the least of the problems is that Java-envious dotted package  
names aren't
really hierarchical; they are just flat strings with funny spelling.

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list