X Implements Y

Dan Sugalski wrote:
...
> I strongly disagree as well. Maybe (*maybe*) particular backends will have
> well-defined optional pieces missing (like, say, dynaloading, or the
> lexer), but that's as far as I'd like to go.
> 
> I have no problem with (and would very much like to design in from the
> start) the potential to *change* or overload the way keywords work via
> modules, but that's a very different thing.
> 
>                                         Dan

I think we should pay attention to the 'implements' keyword in Modula*.
If the interface remains constant, an item behind the interface may change.

You might implement the workings behind an interface (api) from first
principles in unary, and another could provide the same functionality
in something closer to the hardware. 

Of course, this doesn't address the problem of varying apis underneath
the same "Name" for a namespace.  However, I'd like to point toward the notion
of interfaces (c.f. DBI v. DBD) as an important notion.

kevin
[email protected]