I don't know. The boilerplate that my proposal uses is also a form of documentation. So I know right away that the 'sin' function I'm using is from the Math module, or from the Moral module. If the boilerplate is too much in a given piece of code (e.g. you know that a large part of the code makes use of only the definitions in the Math module), then that's what import is for. Brevity is nice, but there is such a thing as too much brevity. Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
I concede that your proposed system is much more general and flexible, so much so that my proposal could actually use it as a basis for its underlying implementation. Our disagreement seems to be more on actual convention and notation. You seem to feel it improper to suggest conventions for notation for a module system and place responsibility for this squarely on the users of third-party libraries. While you indeed propose many methods for accomplishing what a module system is supposed to accomplish, if I were to study someone else's code I'd need to know which method(s) were employed there. The well known Perl adage of there's more than one way to do it is a philosophy that not even Perl sticks to when it comes to organising libraries on CPAN. They have guidelines on the structure of libraries that are generally followed. Libraries that don't follow the guidelines generally see much less use because they cause trouble that users of such libraries need to work to get those libraries to play nice with the libraries that do follow the guidelines.
My real goal in proposing the design of a module system, as I state in the first paragraph of my original blog post, is to encourage the development of third-party libraries. I don't know that placing responsibility for the management of namespaces used by third party libraries entirely in the hands of the user of a library as you propose helps to further that goal.
With my system, if you want to you can just always use w/prefix and it will behave like your system. But you have the option to use less verbosity.
By the way, you keep mentioning how the "burden is placed on the user of the library", and that's exactly right. The library author cannot and should not be expected to predict everything that can happen. The user of the library is the only one with enough information.
You talked about a system using many third-party libraries. Let's look at how that plays out. Because there's so many libraries being used, there's a pretty good chance of conflict. In your system, that would mean that when a conflict occurs, you need to go in and change all the uses of the variable to use the prefix.
And what if you upgrade the library, or if you swap it out for another library? Now you either gotta add prefixes (in case there wasn't any), or you gotta change the prefixes.
And because doing this prefix change is a huge pain in the butt, you'd either encourage users to always prefix their variables (ala Python), or you'd need a smart IDE to do it for the user. Either way, your code ends up being a lot more verbose.
With your system, all conflict resolution happens inside the actual code itself. Which means when conflicts happen or change, you have to change your code.
With hyper-static scope, you just change the imports at the top of the file. The code itself stays the same. This is vastly less verbose and vastly more maintainable. It also opens up the possibility of something like RubyGems, with dependency information kept in a separate file.
You mentioned knowing "whether a variable is from the math module or not", but ironically, hyper-static scope handles that case wonderfully well. Because in hyper-static scope, all variables are resolved at compile-time to a unique box.
Which means that it's trivial to lookup which variables a module uses, and which module the variable was originally defined in. This could be a command-line utility, or it could be built into some IDE.
As an example of that, check out this IDE I designed for Nulan:
If you click on a variable, it will highlight it. Try entering this:
box foo = 1
box foo = 2
Now try clicking on the first "foo", then the third "foo". Basically, it knows exactly which variable is which, because of boxes. And this is really really easy to do.
Factor also has a wonderful integrated IDE that can do this (and more). I mention Factor because although Factor doesn't use hyper-static scope, its module system is quite similar to the system I'm proposing. The biggest difference is that in Factor, all conflicts must be explicitly resolved, whereas with hyper-static scope, some conflicts can be resolved simply by changing the load order. I don't think either style is really superior, more a matter of taste.
I do admit that requiring module prefixes is a way to add self-documentation without the use of an IDE or whatever. But that comes at the high cost of verbosity and flexibility. I personally don't think it's worth it.
If you want that kind of documentation, you're free to use w/prefix, or just use a comment at the top of the file. You might say, "but then users will be lazy and won't do it", and, well, yeah, because it's a pain in the butt. Arc doesn't strike me as the language to force users to do things they don't want to do.
And if there were a command-line utility that would tell you which variable belongs to which module, you could just autogenerate the documentation whenever you want, rather than having it hardcoded into the file.
"By the way, you keep mentioning how the 'burden is placed on the user of the library', and that's exactly right. The library author cannot and should not be expected to predict everything that can happen. The user of the library is the only one with enough information."
While I concede that this is true in general, that also does not mean that the author of a library should not be permitted to provide sensible defaults to allow someone to use the library with a minimum amount of fuss, and at the same time give the user the power to override these defaults when required.
"You talked about a system using many third-party libraries. Let's look at how that plays out. Because there's so many libraries being used, there's a pretty good chance of conflict. In your system, that would mean that when a conflict occurs, you need to go in and change all the uses of the variable to use the prefix."
In my system, every variable in a separate module in general has to have a prefix, just as Python does. That prefix is set by the library author but can be changed by the user of the library if required. You can dispense with the prefixes temporarily by using import in order to manage this verbosity.
You mentioned knowing 'whether a variable is from the math module or not', but ironically, hyper-static scope handles that case wonderfully well. Because in hyper-static scope, all variables are resolved at compile-time to a unique box.
Doesn't help. Your program knows, but you, the programmer, can't easily know this by mere inspection of the code or a snippet of code. You may even need to compare source files from different libraries in order to resolve this question fully under the system you propose, or use a special-purpose IDE or tools. I think that is much more important. With my proposed system, if you see Math::sin or (import Math ... (sin x) ...) then you'd know where it's coming from. An import form has only local effects that end at the closing parenthesis. Use of hyper-static scope in the way you propose on the other hand has unpredictable global effects that can be difficult to trace. I personally don't feel that it is too much of a high price to pay in verbosity and flexibility, and both of these can be ameliorated to a certain degree by using import.
Don't get me started on IDEs. If a language needs a special-purpose IDE in order to be usable, well, I consider that a very serious shortcoming. That's just another kind of forcing users to do things they don't want to do.
For whatever it's worth, I still technically disagree with the "all" here. I admit your approach handles the practical cases.
Your approach has developers hardcoding filenames within their source code. If a developer wants to use two files of the same name, they must find a way to segregate the files into subfolders, or they must rename a file and invade some library source code to rewrite the filename occurrences. Please let me know if I'm wrong about this. :)
The LtU post also goes over at least one use case where a library user wants to update the dependencies of the library without also updating the library itself. Fortunately, this time I think we can agree that this isn't the problem we're discussing. :) It's something I care about in a module system, but it's not directly related to name collision.
"Er, is it the other way around? It looks like at least this post of mine came after the email discussion"
Yes, but the discussion started with the Arc topic and then moved to e-mail and then moved back to the Arc topic.
"I admit your approach handles the practical cases."
Well then! I'll consider that "all", since I only care about the practical cases.
"Your approach has developers hardcoding filenames within their source code. If a developer wants to use two files of the same name, they must find a way to segregate the files into subfolders, or they must rename a file and invade some library source code to rewrite the filename occurrences. Please let me know if I'm wrong about this. :)"
Yes. It is tied to the filesystem, or website URLs, or Git commits, or whatever. But, the filesystem already enforces a "no two files with the same name in the same folder" rule, so no biggie.
If you wanted to create something that manages dependencies at a more abstract level, that's fine, and you can build it on top of my system, but I personally don't see much use for that (yet).
If your worry isn't about filenames at all, and is simply about putting filenames into the source code, I think the answer is really easy: just do something like RubyGems, where you have a standard file called "dependencies" that imports all the dependencies in the right order. And then when you want to load the library, you'd just load the "dependencies" file. This doesn't require any changes to my system, since it's purely user-convention.
This still allows for putting the dependency information straight into the source code, which is useful for quickie scripts and such. But big projects and libraries would use the "dependencies" convention. And as Ruby showed, this kind of user-convention can be applied after the language is already in use. So it doesn't need to be baked in ahead of time, though there might be some minor transition pain. But I'll worry about that once libraries and projects become big enough that a "dependencies" convention becomes useful.