On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 11:04:32 +0100 Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> Am 01.11.2014 um 10:29 schrieb ketmar via Digitalmars-d: > > On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 09:24:46 +0000 > > bearophile via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > > > >> tcak: > >> > >>> Is there any VERY SPECIAL reason behind that limitation? > >> > >> What advantages gives removing that "limitation"? Is the price in > >> increased complexity worth paying? > > nested modules, like in Modula. which were of almost no use and were > > removed in Oberon. > > > > A few languages have nested packages. Quite usefull for implementation > packages. > > Beware of Wirth's quest for simplicity, even Go is a quite powerful in > regards to Oberon-07. > > From my experience in the Oberon world, I got the feeling Wirth isn't > that happy with Active Oberon and Zonnon in terms of language evolution, > where he barely colaborated. > > Hence why he eventually came up with Oberon-07, which is even more > minimalist than Oberon. Modula-3 removed that feature too, AFAIR. that was considered needless complication that serves no practical purposes. as for Wirth's minimalism... i know, Oberon-1 doesn't even include FOR. ;-) i bet Wirth doesn't like vi for being too complicated and too far from text. ;-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
