[erlang-questions] newbie: why c.erl is special?
Thu Mar 6 10:22:14 CET 2008
While I do not know what everybody wants I have a question about the
lack of hierarchy in the existing (unsupported) erlang dotted package
Given a module a.b.c and another module a.b.d, is it not possible to say
d:fun() in a.b.c and get a.b.d:fun()? If the system is flat strings I
would expect to have to write a.b.d:fun() in a.b.c.
Even so I would still like to have a LACE like system for erlang. It
would be able to handle more situations with less work for me.
On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 13:45 +1300, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
> > 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.
> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions