Re: When functional languages can be accepted by industry?

From: John Max Skaller (skaller@maxtal.com.au)
Date: Fri Apr 21 2000 - 21:56:05 MET DST

  • Next message: Gerd Stolpmann: "www.ocaml-programming.de"

    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
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 25 2000 - 19:05:51 MET DST