[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: dylan-user

>
> > I don't understand why the Module: statement is needed, if libraries
> > are at
> > the top of the hierarchy, i.e., libraries contain modules.  Doesn't this
> > statement say that the time library is in the dylan-user module?
>
> I should know this one. :-) I think it's also because code has to be in
> modules. :-) Hopefully someone can give a better answer than this.
>

*sigh*, this semi-circular-chicken-and-egg stuff is really bugging me!  :-)
Some of my confusion is coming from the fact that in my mind, the define
library isn't really "code" (is it?).  Sure it's code, but it's not
_executable code_.
Anyway, if the intent of the dylan-user module is to import the dylan
module, then why do example libraries have to have their own

use dylan;

statements within their definition?  Why not do _that_ implicitly, too?
And, to reiterate, the Module: dylan-user statement at the beginning of a
source file that defines a library and the modules within that library
_seems_ to contradict the containment hierarchy of libraries containing
modules.

Someone needs to chime in authoritatively on this before I go nuts.
Is there a language lawyer in the house?

Thanks Rob, for your help!

-John
Follow-Ups: