If we always import entire modules and not a single exported element [I
think allowing this is a bad idea. Java does this, and has a multi-page
algorithm for unambiguously resolving something like a.b.c.d.e], we can
change the syntax of import from
(import new_name a.b.c.d.e)
to
(import new_name "a/b/c/d/e.bitc").
The usage of exported elements would still be new_name.elem
Since our modules are just compilation units, this change will relax any
hierarchical-ordering restriction between modules and files. However, it
is arguable that this is not a restriction but a feature.
Also, an different approach would be to say ALL of files containing the
necessary modules should be provided as the parameters at command line
(libraries can be provided as objects or archives) and the compiler will
not open any more files for you. If this is done, we need not force any
naming bonds between modules and files, and in fact, a file can have
multiple modules. [Note that I am NOT advocating nested modules]
Swaroop.
_______________________________________________
bitc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
