Browse thread
Re: When functional languages can be accepted by industry?
-
Gerd Stolpmann
- John Max Skaller
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | John Max Skaller <skaller@m...> |
| Subject: | Re: When functional languages can be accepted by industry? |
Gerd Stolpmann wrote: > But this is only a suggestion. Perhaps people want a different tool? I do not > know. My feeling is that Findlib is an excellent tool, but we really need something a lot more seamless. Perhaps the first, and simplest step, is to augment the notion of 'path' from a list of directories to search for a module A, to the notion that we can navigate the file system _tree_ looking for 'nested' module name such as D1.D2.B. What I envisage is that 'opening' a module which turns out to be a directory is some special file, plus the modules in that directory. These 'nested' modules are written 'as if nested in their parent'. In other words, this compilation model is a 'lexical convention' for writing (* module top *) (* .. code for top .. *) module submod1 = .. module submod2 = ... Just as there is a convention that a 'plain' *.ml file is a top level module, a directory represents a special module whose primary function is namespace control. This requires a change to the compiler I think. It is not a total package control mechanism, but it alleviates the namespace pollution problem, and makes the files of a package easier to install using a directory tree (perhaps using symbolic links ..). BTW: it isn't clear whether the directory's module file (called __init__.py in python) is a good idea. -- John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au 10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850 checkout Vyper http://Vyper.sourceforge.net download Interscript http://Interscript.sourceforge.net