Hi all!

Quoting Stephane Ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch>:
> So do not see why we need modules and just keep deltamodules, and 
> rename it delta.

Huh? I didn't understand that sentence.

> This distinction is ad-hoc.

What do you mean? I have given ample arguments for the distinction but you
haven't even bothered to respond to them!

> But if you believe it is worth the conceptual mess go for it. I imagine

I can not see the "conceptual mess". I really like the Module/DeltaModule
separation. There are things we probably can make better - like the parent-child
relation and it's meaning, perhaps refactoring the Module classes with a common
superclass (hmmm, naming can be tricky) and so forth.

And versions of Modules has barely been scratched but the issue has been
discussed quite a bit and I think it can fit in quite nicely.

> me teaching it....dramatic.

How come? Exactly what is it that is so... wrong? I am bending over backwards
here trying to explain the basics but you are not exactly meeting me halfway
with arguments against it.

Ok, what about all you other people out there? Are my explanations making any
sense? Henrik - could you please acknowledge that I haven't made any gross
factual errors? Daniel, what do you think?

I continue to stand by the Modules codebase as a good start, but I am always
open for improvements.

regards, Göran

Göran Hultgren, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
GSM: +46 70 3933950, http://www.bluefish.se
\"Department of Redundancy department.\" -- ThinkGeek