On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:08 AM, Ben Kloosterman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ok so what is the story here ,, I think objects , interfaces and modules > all doing encapsulation is 1 layer too many . > Two, actually. :-) > When you have an interface of statics functions ( ie a type class or a > collection of functions ) , then it begins overlapping the role of modules. > Yes. And I was therefore hopeful that perhaps modules could be replaced by static interfaces. If that works, then we can eliminate a concept from the language. If not, then we can't. What I forgot is that module names are tied up in the package namespace, which is a different namespace from the identifier namespace. > Is it viable reverting modules to namespaces ? Modules are needed with > type classes but can interfaces with namespaces do that for bitc ? > I don't know why modules are needed for type classes. As to the rest, that's the question I'm wondering about too: can interfaces replace modules?
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
