Re: But is it Object-Oriented?

>>That's why I've been using ther term of 'units'. It might correspond
>>to 
>>files in some implementation, but not necessarilly (especially when 
>>using an IDE, and unit could simply be a way to regroup closely tied 
>>definitions inside a package, without any notion of file).
>>    
>>
>
>So are Units going to appear in the language syntax, at some point?
>  
>
It would only be useful to have a syntax for them if you wanted to have 
units inside units. That could encourage to have large units, which 
might not be a good thing (and that complexifies the language).

My idea is that the language definition speaks about packages and 
modules, but does not specify how they are stored physically. A typical 
implementation is one filesystem directory per package and one file per 
unit, but that's outside of the language definition.

>(Wierd name for a module)
>  
>
We could call them module instead. I just thought that it might be 
confusing to have both package and module. OTOH, "unit" might be useful 
for precise typing of things like meters, grams, etc. But if that might 
be just a part of the type system, so we would not need a special 
concept for it. To be investigated...

BTW, Java is specified roughly in the same way, and uses the name 
"compilation units" for "modules".

Daniel



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now.
Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with
a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click