Code That Says Exactly What It Means

[Alexandru Ermicioi]

On Tuesday, 28 October 2025 at 22:16:19 UTC, Peter C wrote:
> One side of the argument is: If you put related types in the 
> same module, they should own each other.
>
> I say no - actually, I put them in the same module because they 
> needed to collaborate much more closely than they would be able 
> to if they were not in the same module. But they certainly do 
> not need to own each other.
>
> I have not seen any valid argument, for why 'they should own 
> each other'.

Then use packages, not modules, and you'll get the properties you 
want. Have modules encapsulate a single type with friends 
instead, or a set of overly friendly types not privy to messing 
with each one around behind the back of other colleagues (types) 
in the code.

You can then have package act as a module when imported somewhere 
else.

Over-fixating on why you cant have it all in a single module will 
only lead to unnecessary frustration (seen it here before).

Best regards.