Hi,

> A counter-example is Emacs.  Emacs has *tons* of code available for it,
> and yet it all tends to work nicely together with any subset of the
> modules loaded.  And Emacs doesn't even have namespaces!  It's all done
> by hand.
> 
> I don't know why it works out, but it certainly does, somehow or another.
> It's at least *possible*.

  The reason why Emacs handles the complexity (module
dependency) better might be partly because the presense of
"built-in" mechanism, such as require/featurep/autoload: the
submodules declare which module depends on which with those
mechanism.

  It would be nice if the user can declare the module
dependency in class definition or in class-category, and
those declarations are included fileouts.

  However, Emacs also suffers from the same problem, IMO.
For example, the independent minor-modes tend to conflict in
keymaps and something like that.

  -- Yoshiki  (at Pacific Time)