Re: Document the current module system?

[Martin Grabmueller]

> From: NIIBE Yutaka <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:22:52 +0900 (JST)
> 
>  > Can someone point me to
>  > a mail archive or documents which describe why the current module
>  > system is `idiosyncratic' (as the manual says) and needs replacement
>  > at all? (serious question)
> 
> For me, most annoying part (still remained) is the confusion of the
> hierachy of module name and "Recursive Namespaces" of symbol.  The
> hierachy of module name is good thing like file system with hierachy
> (such as UNIX), it's just useful than flat space.

I didn't know about that recursive Namespace until now.  I can't
remember that I ever needed anything like that...

I think that the current module system is quite useable and useful as
it is now.  Maybe that's the reason why were still waiting for Godot.

> On the other hand, the idea of "Recursive Namespaces" is bogus, not
> implemented, in fact.  It seems that its intention was supporting
> namespace in namespace of symbol.  Note that it's *not* the namespace
> of module name.  I guess that idea is like that: Symbols defined and
> exported by the module (oop goops) are in the scope for the modules
> under (oop goops), such as (oop goops stklos) automagically.
> 
> I think that it's questionable feature, much.  I think that user
> should control the namespace explicitly.  It's dangerous to have
> inherited symbol namespace which is implicitly-defined by module name.
> At least, we should not combine that feature of recursive namespace
> of symbol with the hierachy of module name.

I agree.

Regards,
  'martin