Why the compiler dosen't enforce correct module declarations?

[Derek Parnell]

On Sun, 13 May 2007 05:22:15 +0000 (UTC), Manfred Nowak wrote:

> Ary Manzana wrote
> 
>> totaly unnecessary to have the module declaration
>> say something different
> 
> Can you prove this statement correct?
> Why then have module declarations at all? What is the redundany good 
> for?
> 
> In general: any proof that some form of existing freedom is not usable 
> is a counter argument for the wish to delete that freedom. For a 
> freedom that is usable a declaration of unnecessity is insufficient; a 
> retraction has to be grounded by greater wealth (in terms of money) of 
> the set of possible users---unless it is a "political" decision.

The only reason I can see as the purpose of the module statement is to
ensure that one has named the file as one intended it to be named.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
"Justice for David Hicks!"
skype: derek.j.parnell