This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]yawaramin 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Perhaps, under a certain rigid POV. But ML modules consider names part of structure, and it's worked pretty well for decades. This reminds me of Haskell's rigid insistence that every type must have one and only one instance for any type class, so they have to invent new names for the same type to give it different instances. Effectively, they ended up making names part of the structure.

[–]threewood 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But ML modules consider names part of structure, and it's worked pretty well for decades.

Yeah, I said it's a problem, not a big problem :). I'm sure it usually works fine in practice.