On 13 September 2016 at 07:33, Sander Mak <sander....@luminis.eu> wrote: >> Here is my counter proposal, hopefully a >> relatively small conceptual change: > > Not sure whether introducing a new top-level keyword (exposes) is better than > adding a modifier keyword to exports. As was the case with `exports dynamic`, > but a better name might be `exports runtime` since that's how we are > referring to its effects in this whole discussion. For the rest, I agree with > the gist of the counter proposal.
I chose "exposes" for two reasons. 1) It seems entirely orthogonal to "exports". Exports is all about public API, and that API should only be callable by modules that require the exporting module. Whereas exposing something is all about the nasty yucky internals. I don't see much overlap between the two concepts at this point. 2) "expose" is a word with deliberately negative connotations, for the same reasons that the original proposal suggested "weak". I'd also argue that "exports+exposes" is a cleaner way to express the concepts than "exports", "exports dynamic" and "exports runtime". On the "weak module" concept, I find that it is a binary top-level choice, yet it needs quite a lot of understanding to appreciate why it should be there. Whereas, exports+exposes can be learnt and adjusted more easily step by step. Stephen
