Re: Packages and modules

On 2006-07-06, Malcolm Wallace wrote:

John Meacham wrote:

...

Package names should never appear in source files IMHO. if a package name is in the source file, then you might as well make it part of the module name. Packages exist for 'meta-organization' of code. A way to deal with mapping code _outside_ of the language itself, putting packages inside the code will force the creation of yet another level, meta-packages, or something. packages should not be a language issue, they are an environment one.

I tend to the opposite view. The meaning of the code should be expressed in the code itself. If a module M imports A.B.C, and I can see two such modules called A.B.C, then the meaning of the code is ambiguous and ill-defined. I would rather not have to look elsewhere (in the build system? Makefile? scons? Cabal file? DOS batch file? where?) to find out how to resolve the ambiguity. Surely the programmer knew which import was intended. Is it so difficult to communicate that information somewhere close to the import itself?

Then, as John points out, how is package Foo module A.B.C and package Bar module A.B.C any different than modules Foo.A.B.C and Bar.A.B.C? (And I agree with Ketil about when it is useful to specify this outside the source, unlike your flag example.) -- Aaron Denney -><-