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

Bengt Kleberg bengt.kleberg@REDACTED
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  
> this.
> 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
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list