[erlang-questions] packages (was: newbie: why c.erl is special?)

Brian Cully bcully@REDACTED
Fri Mar 7 00:48:04 CET 2008

On 6-Mar-2008, at 17:03, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
> In the mean time, life could get a lot simpler for people if they
> realised that .erl files
> don't have to be the very beginning of the build process (hint hint).

	Don't get me wrong: I hate package.names being tied to directories as  
well, and the idea of having to type foo.bar.baz:quux() every time i  
ref an external package would drive me up a wall. I /also/ like the  
M:F(A) style of external function call for code understandability, so  
"import" is not an ideal solution. Hell, I wish there wasn't an  
"import" directive at all, but that's for another day.

	However the only solution I can think of that's worse than that is  
one which destroys my ability to type C-c C-k in Emacs and do  
something useful. To that extent, any solution should probably be  
contained in the .erl itself, or on the outside a single-use bootstrap  
for loading a system (akin to asdf from CL land).

	I'm actually reasonably happy w/ the current system. It strikes a  
good balance between readability (M:F(A)) and writability (flat  


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list