[jsr294-modularity-eg] iJam

[Rok Strnisa]

On 18 Sep 2007, at 21:05, Alex Buckley wrote:
> The paper raises two issues:
> 1) Sharing a type between two module definitions.
> 2) Selecting a type in a module definition when import policy and  
> other
> artifacts cause multiple types with the same name to be available.
>
>  From a 294 perspective, these issues do not arise because of the rule
> that a type can only be a member of a single superpackage. Indeed, the
> rule was expressly designed to keep things simple for a Java  
> programmer
> who just wants to group related packages together.

The paper deals with _different_ types that are present in different  
superpackages (module definitions), but have the same fully-qualified  
names, either accidentally or on purpose (to override the other type).

Do you mean by "a type can only be a member of a single superpackage"  
that
a) "each fully-qualified class name can only appear as a member in a  
single superpackage", or
b) "an exact type (represented by an exact classfile) can only appear  
as a member in a single superpackage"?

If a), the decision seems too limiting; if b), the decision does not  
interfere with the idea in the paper.

Rok