This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: About modules
- To: Greg Troxel <gdt at fnord dot ir dot bbn dot com>
- Subject: Re: About modules
- From: Marius Vollmer <mvo at zagadka dot ping dot de>
- Date: 22 Feb 2000 22:32:26 +0100
- Cc: guile at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
[ I cc this to the list because I think this should not be discussed
behind the scenes. ]
Greg Troxel <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> If your point is
> what we are doing with namespaces under the term 'modules' is all
> well and good, but we shouldn't call it 'modules'
> then I understood you, and agree. If you meant to say that something
> about the current 'module system' effort is misguided, I didn't
> understand it.
I don't want to go so far as to call the current effort misguided.
However, I think the view that I expressed can help to simplify the
design space significantly and can lead to a more constructive
For example, we shouldn't need to talk about the concept of
instantiable and parameterizable `units' that MzScheme has. In my
view, the issues addressed by units can be solved nicely with a
combination of GOOPS and name spaces. In effect, units have some of
the characteristics of an object system, but we already have something
better (GOOPS) which can be used instead.