Sorry for not explaining things well. As Stefan guessed it is based of my experience with npm of which I have a lot and not much with Julia package system so it's hard for me to see what needs explaining and what doesn't. I have edited the readme now to explain the API. The index.jl file isn't special it's just what the module happens to be called. The call to the emit function was just to show that some stuff had been loaded from the emitter.jl repo. I've taken that part out for now
On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 12:24:51 AM UTC+13, Tim Holy 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. > >
