On 5/28/11 10:11 AM, Alex Rozenshteyn wrote:
Since no-one has yet mentioned it, and I think it might be relevant,
http://types.bu.edu/seminar-modularity/first-class-modules-for-haskell.pdf
I haven't read it with any degree of understanding, but I don't think
it's tractable to remove modules fr
On 28/05/2011, at 3:37 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 23:10, Tom Murphy wrote:
>> I sure love Hackage, but there's a very interesting discussion
>> going on, on the Erlang mailing list, about completely restructuring
>> the module-model.
>
> Sounds like one of those id
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 13:34, Ketil Malde wrote:
> Tom Murphy writes:
>> Before you dismiss it as crazy, know that the topic was brought
>> up by Joe Armstrong
>
> Being brilliant doesn't mean the absence of mental bad hair days, but
> merely that they happen more rarely than for the rest o
Tom Murphy writes:
Modules tend to group togheter data structures and functions that
operate on them - i.e. natural units of code. So I think modules are
good also for didactical reasons, in that module imports limit the scope
a reader needs to know to understand the code.
I don't know Erlang,
Since no-one has yet mentioned it, and I think it might be relevant,
http://types.bu.edu/seminar-modularity/first-class-modules-for-haskell.pdf
I haven't read it with any degree of understanding, but I don't think it's
tractable to remove modules from haskell, nor desirable.
On Sat, May 28, 2011
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 05:12, Alex Kropivny wrote:
> Regardless of how crazy it sounds, an idea from Joe Armstrong is worth
> seriously thinking over.
Possibly, but this is just another manifestation of a general problem
that nobody has yet managed to solve very nicely. Admittedly, the way
Erla
2011/5/28 Alex Kropivny :
> Erlang has the advantage of functions being the basic, composeable building
> block. Packages and modules are merely means to organize them, and mediocre
> means at that, so a better system is definitely a possibility. Haskell has
> the complication of having type defini
Regardless of how crazy it sounds, an idea from Joe Armstrong is worth
seriously thinking over.
This has bugged me before: think about how we design and write code as
project size, or programmer skill grows. You start with composing statements
inside a single function; later, you start to compose
On 28.05.2011 07:10, Tom Murphy wrote:
Hi All,
I sure love Hackage, but there's a very interesting discussion
going on, on the Erlang mailing list, about completely restructuring
the module-model.
Before you dismiss it as crazy, know that the topic was brought
up by Joe Armstrong, one
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 23:10, Tom Murphy wrote:
> I sure love Hackage, but there's a very interesting discussion
> going on, on the Erlang mailing list, about completely restructuring
> the module-model.
Sounds like one of those ideas that looks really neat on paper but in
the real world run
Hi All,
I sure love Hackage, but there's a very interesting discussion
going on, on the Erlang mailing list, about completely restructuring
the module-model.
Before you dismiss it as crazy, know that the topic was brought
up by Joe Armstrong, one of the creators of the language.
Here's t
11 matches
Mail list logo
