My reaction is the same as Tim Holy's. While I agree there are aspects of Julia's modules which are not perfect, it's not clear at all how your package changes the workflow. In fact, I don't understand anything about your package. Could you please try to write up the design thoughts behind what you are doing, so that we can understand the high level concepts that you are attempting?
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 6:24 AM, Tim Holy <[email protected]> wrote: > After reading your README example, I'm still left wondering how one works > with > Kip, or how it fixes the problems you're describing. To me it's not at all > obvious how your example "illustrates" the statements you make in the > prose. > You might consider explaining the meaning of the various arguments to > @require, what an "index" file is and what its format should be, and > exactly > what the call to the emit function is supposed to demonstrate. > > Best, > --Tim > > On Saturday, December 19, 2015 11:26:53 PM Jake Rosoman wrote: > > I forgot to actually link to the project < > https://github.com/jkroso/Kip.jl> > > > > On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 8:25:04 PM UTC+13, Jake Rosoman wrote: > > > Julia's module system is the one part of it I feel confident enough to > say > > > is bad. It can't handle several versions of the same package. Is hard > (or > > > impossible?) to depend on packages that aren't in the registry and > hard to > > > add (controversial) things to the registry. I also find it ugly and > hard > > > to > > > use but now I'm getting into opinions so I'll stop. > > > > > > Kip solves all these problems and works fine alongside Julia's current > > > module system so you can try it out now. I hope that eventually we can > > > replace Julia's module system if people generally agree that it's worth > > > doing. I've created a poll to measure the communities opinion > > > <http://tally.tl/3002Y> and you can change your vote at any time so > feel > > > free to say no now but follow the discussion. > >
