[<<][staapl][>>][..]
Mon Mar 7 19:18:27 EST 2011

Tension between modules and units

* Modules are definitely easier to use.  The directed nature of
  dependencies makes it easy to hide stuff.

* Units are more flexible and necessary when there are different
  implementations of interfaces.

Now, is it possible for modules to depend on some "machine" module
that provies all the identifiers, and have this resolved later in a
top-level linking phase?

EDIT:

I.e. where A -> B means "A depends on B"

    A -> B -> C -> M

All the arrows could be implemented by `require' be it for holes in M.

I don't think it's possible to automatically translate the module
chain to a unit chain when one inserts holes in M.  It seems that the
only way to do that is to use dynamic parameters, and that's not what
I want.  I had that before and it's too error-prone.  I really want
static bindings, no side-effecting behaviour change.




[Reply][About]
[<<][staapl][>>][..]