On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 01:51:26PM +0100, Emmanuel Touzery wrote:
> But that way I must still have public getEventProvider() function which
> returns the record, that I call by convention without some compiler
> enforcement, which doesn't sound right.

In some way you have to tell your program the available providers. How
should a compiler enforce this?

It's already pretty good like that but, in an OO language basically if you write a new such "module" you know you must implement the interface, and that's all you need to know: the type of the interface. Then the compiler enforces all the names of methods and return and parameter types.

So all you need to know is the name of the interface.

Here there is an "interface", the record of functions. But each module must basically define a function returning that record. Sure, the module must implement that function, the same as you must implement it in OO languages, but each module can also make up its mind for the name of the function.

I mean it's basically nitpicking at this point, and it's because I'm used to one way. I'm just used that most of the time haskell is better in (almost) every way to OO languages, here I think it's maybe a bit less good, that's all.

Emmanuel