🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <943@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
>In article <395@aiva.ed.ac.uk>, jeff@aiva.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>> By the way, Richard, are you still opposed to the so-called atom-based
>> module schemes?  I suppose it should be a separate topic...

The reason I asked is that your recent remarks on the impossibility of
sharply distinguishing code from data would tend to support "atom-
based" designs.

It also seems strange that (with non-text schemes) in

     p(a).

p/1 is subject to modules, but in

     q(p(a)).

it is not -- even though q/1 may use call/1 or otherwise be dealing with
the same p/1 as in the first example.  (Is portray an example?)

I'll respond more fully to your reasons against in a separate message.

-- Jeff