So, we can have :: in names, but that doesn't represent any inherent relationship between the module before the :: and the one after. I think this is an important thing to keep.
However, will it be possible to, for example, do:
module Foo;
module Bar { ... }
And refer to the inner module as, say, Foo.Bar.
Kinda like an inner class in Java?
A more interesting
concept, can one use variables as modules, like:
::($foo)::somefunc();
except dynamic?
(On a side note, that syntax doesn't seem right, although I can't fathom what is...)
Or some awful thing like that?
And of course this would imply the existance of anonymous modules. Yay.
How... would that be useful? What would one use an anonymous module for that they couldn't do with an anonymous class? I thought a module was more of a compiletime distinction, while a class was a runtime + compiletime (i.e. all encompassing) one.
- Joe
