Re: [collections][lang] Functors, pre-vote

[robert burrell donkin]

On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 08:39 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:

On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

Thus the only viable solutions are:

Solution (a)
functors in [lang]
[collections] depends on [lang]

Solution (b)
functors in [functor]
[collections] depends on [functor]

Solution (c)
functors in [collections]

Any more views. Is [functor] viable??

[functor] seems fine. The charter definitely pushes us towards small
components, and this is a viable way of managing a library [with
its own set of obvious negatives]. I'm all for the functor package as is
in Lang being promoted to Functor [yeah, were back to patterns but with a
better PROPOSAL].

+1

Does it matter if [functor] and [lang] have circular dependencies? Not
that they will.

it appears that [functor] will need to depend on [lang] for exception nesting.

hopefully, lang will not need to depend on functor. if it does, then maybe it shows that the factoring has gone a bit wrong and we need to think about it again.

- robert


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>