[m-dev.] module system discussion

Fergus Henderson fjh at cs.mu.OZ.AU
Tue Dec 11 12:47:26 AEDT 2001

On 30-Nov-2001, Simon Taylor <stayl at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> I'm not proposing the `:- transparent_module' extension just
> for .NET. I am arguing that it is generally good style to qualify
> class method names with the class name, and that it is worth adding
> a small extension to the module system to make that more convenient.
> This hasn't come up before because we haven't used typeclasses much
> before, and especially not in large module hierarchies.

Wouldn't ordinary nested modules and `:- use_hierarchy' suffice,
both for Mercury type classes, and for interfacing with .NET?

What would `:- transparent_module' give us that ordinary nested
modules and `:- use_hierarchy' don't?  Is whatever benefit they
would give us really worth a language extension?

Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
mercury-developers mailing list
Post messages to:       mercury-developers at cs.mu.oz.au
Administrative Queries: owner-mercury-developers at cs.mu.oz.au
Subscriptions:          mercury-developers-request at cs.mu.oz.au

More information about the developers mailing list