On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:05 PM, P. <uploa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Doug, thanks for the link, I'll read it when I'm not at work. (oops :P) > > What about mimicking something like OCaml's functors or whatever they call > their dependency interfaces?
An idea I had was to use test suites to describe dependencies. You could say "if this package implementation passes this test suite, then it fulfills this dependency." Whether it's practical to write detailed enough test suites in practice is a good question, but in theory it could allow you to express implementation requirements in a more flexible way than module signatures or version numbers. -Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Factor-talk mailing list Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
