[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: package proposal
- From: Roberto Ierusalimschy <roberto@...>
- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:26:45 -0300
> why shouldn't independently-distributed modules providing related
> functionality be grouped into a package (and even require one another)?
What about "A *package* is a collection of interrelated modules"?
> The "one file = one module" rule is arbitrary and wrong. Most
> languages with a decent module system don't have it.
Python has it hardcoded. Perl allows a package to be defined in several
files, but there is no standard way to load such a package. (I am not
sure whether they qualify as "languages with a decent module system",
but there are few complains about their module systems.) In Lua, too,
you will be able to spread a module through several files (and even to
define several modules in one file), but there is no standard way to
import such modules.
> I think, all in all, this proposal suffers from feature bloat. [...]
> The CPAN model might offer some lessons here:
Which feature in this proposal are not present in Perl? (Ok, the stuff
about C modules and preloaded modules are not present in Perl, but Perl
almost do not use C modules.) Which specific feature do you think we