On 10 July 2024 21:04:41 BST, Michael Morris <[email protected]> wrote:
>The largest thrust of modules is to step forward with changes that are
>desirable but impossible to implement because of BC breaks brought on by
>unfortunate design decisions like the one mentioned previously. Likely
>these will be visited on a case by case basis. For another is the need of
>classes to have the function keyword all over the place.
That sounds like a one-time chance for some fairly random changes you happen to like the idea of, at
the cost of permanently forking the language into two dialects. It doesn't sound much to do
with "modules", and I don't think it will be popular.
>It could end up that things like package privacy can only be supported in
>the modules.
Please, please, don't do that. I don't want to rewrite a bunch of code into a different
flavour of the language, just to make use of a new feature that has nothing to do with those
changes.
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]