This is the mail archive of the
guile@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: A module system should resolve, not introduce, name conflicts
- To: Marius Vollmer <mvo at zagadka dot ping dot de>
- Subject: Re: A module system should resolve, not introduce, name conflicts
- From: Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj at mdj dot nada dot kth dot se>
- Date: 24 Feb 2000 22:47:54 +0100
- Cc: guile at sourceware dot cygnus dot com, djurfeldt at nada dot kth dot se
- Cc: djurfeldt at nada dot kth dot se
- References: <xy7snyie7cv.fsf@mdj.nada.kth.se> <87r9e2cmsp.fsf@zagadka.ping.de>
Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.ping.de> writes:
> > My position is that the idea of mixing forms of the module
> > configuration language with the bindings it's supposed to manage is
> > flawed.
>
> If I understood Rees' module system right, one can mix the
> configuration language and ordinary code, but the configuration
> language is contained in just another name space named "module-system"
> and it works like any other name space. Structures (and interfaces)
> are contained in name spaces as well, which are usually separate from
> `code' name spaces, but they don't need to be. I find this very
> beautiful.
Yes, exactly.
(I meant "forcibly mixing".)