"Note one huge diff with Java / C# is we are using interfaces as our encapsulation..."
I'm not sure about that. Even though I think we're pretty sold on interfaces at this point, it may still make sense to have the notion of public vs. private members and methods. shap Ok so what is the story here ,, I think objects , interfaces and modules all doing encapsulation is 1 layer too many . When you have an interface of statics functions ( ie a type class or a collection of functions ) , then it begins overlapping the roll of modules. ( im not talking about modules as code compilation units) Is it viable reverting modules to namespaces ? Modules are needed with type classes but can interfaces with namespaces do that for bitc ? Ben
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
