Re: Some modules from Modula-2

[acken@informatik.uni-kl.de]

>  From: Frank Copeland <fjc@wossname.apana.org.au>
>  
>  > > Mike wrote:
>  > I have no objection to your naming convention.  It will be implemented so.
>  > It will have additional functions which are not part of the ISO standard
>  > however (sinh, cosh, tanh, inverses, and a few others).
>  
>  If you are going to extend a module defined in some kind of standard, my
>  preference is to put the extensions in another module with a similar name.
>  Otherwise it defeats the purpose of having a standardised module.
>  
I don't like the idea at all.  You end up with module naming schemes
like Strings and Strings2.  Since we are not following any standard
and have no inclination to fulfill any standard, we have full freedom
in implementing the modules.  We are merely borrowing the good parts,
but that doesn't mean that we have to do everything to the letter and
not add other useful stuff (within limits, agreed).  

-- mva