[m-rev.] for review: Document that `:- module' for separate submodules must be fully qualified.

[Zoltan Somogyi]

2020-01-14 17:08 GMT+11:00 Julien Fischer<jfischer at opturion.com>:
> That's fine by me; I'll got through the documentation and adjust it.
> (Assuming no-one else beats me to it.)

I won't try.

> The issue is that Peter's original diff deleted the bit saying what is
> allowed.  (Which reads oddly, because we make a point of saying what is
> allowed for nested submodule but not separate ones.)

Yes, that does look odd.

We should definitively specify the rules for both, but the rules
may be looser for nested submodules, since the name of the
containing module is NOT in doubt.

On the other hand, my overall preference for nested submodules
is to have them disappear from the language. But that is NOT a proposal.

>> For include_module declarations, the qualification as written in the code
>> is not very important, because the included module's fully qualified name
>> *has to be* the fully qualified name of the including module, followed by
>> the name of the submodule. This means that the only kind of wrong qualification
>> is the one that does not pass the "partial_sym_name_matches_full" test
>> on the fully qualified name of the included module.
> 
> By "not very important", you presumably mean "completely redundant". ;-)
> That said, the reference manual should still say what is allowed.

Agreed.

Zoltan.