Re: Curry module system

From: Wolfgang Jeltsch <>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 21:07:15 +0100

Am Freitag, 27. Januar 2006 18:03 schrieb Michael Hanus:
> Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> > Maybe we shouldn't strictly force that a module Main is stored in
> > Main.curry since this might cause problems if one wants to deal with
> > several main I/O actions which, as far as I know, must all reside inside
> > a module Main.
> This is not required in Curry and I do not understand why this
> should be required. In our implementation, we can have main
> I/O actions in arbitrary modules, and this does not cause
> any problem for the compiler, since the compiler always knows
> which is the main module for a specific application.
> Requiring the existence of a module with a specific name
> like "Main" seems to be a choice from older days and is
> also not required in languages like Java.

This seems like a good thing to me. However, it would be even better if the
main I/O action also hasn't to be named main. Or is this already the case?

> Best regards,
> Michael

Best wishes,

curry mailing list
Received on Mo Jan 30 2006 - 09:12:56 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Do Dez 07 2023 - 07:15:09 CET