On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Ben Kloosterman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is it viable reverting modules to namespaces ? Modules are needed with >>> type classes but can interfaces with namespaces do that for bitc ? >>> >> >> I don't know why modules are needed for type classes. As to the rest, >> that's the question I'm wondering about too: can interfaces replace >> modules? >> > > Are they not need to encapsulate / hide data types and especially their > creation . > Nope. One has essentially nothing to do with the other. > This whole static interface concept makes me go gaga ( I still have to > respond to the other emails but i need to make a leap ) . Its a contract to > what... > You're *way* overthinking it. It's just a namespace relationship. Nothing to do with modules. Nothing to do with assemblies. The contract is that if the interface type definition is lexically visible to you then you can call the static methods of that interface. That's all.
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
