Hi all!
Quoting Stephane Ducasse ducasse@iam.unibe.ch:
So do not see why we need modules and just keep deltamodules, and rename it delta.
Huh? I didn't understand that sentence.
This distinction is ad-hoc.
What do you mean? I have given ample arguments for the distinction but you haven't even bothered to respond to them!
But if you believe it is worth the conceptual mess go for it. I imagine
I can not see the "conceptual mess". I really like the Module/DeltaModule separation. There are things we probably can make better - like the parent-child relation and it's meaning, perhaps refactoring the Module classes with a common superclass (hmmm, naming can be tricky) and so forth.
And versions of Modules has barely been scratched but the issue has been discussed quite a bit and I think it can fit in quite nicely.
me teaching it....dramatic.
How come? Exactly what is it that is so... wrong? I am bending over backwards here trying to explain the basics but you are not exactly meeting me halfway with arguments against it.
Ok, what about all you other people out there? Are my explanations making any sense? Henrik - could you please acknowledge that I haven't made any gross factual errors? Daniel, what do you think?
I continue to stand by the Modules codebase as a good start, but I am always open for improvements.
regards, Göran
Göran Hultgren, goran.hultgren@bluefish.se GSM: +46 70 3933950, http://www.bluefish.se "Department of Redundancy department." -- ThinkGeek