@Henrique_Becker: My issue is a question of using precise (correct) words to avoid confusing the reader.
The using .Inner statement you use here does not actually loadmodule Inner. That module was loaded when the Julia interpreter read through your code.
The only thing that the using .Inner statement does in your case is “import” symbols that module Inner “export”-ed. That’s the 3rd point I made in my first entry:
Why so pedantic?
I think it is imperative to use precise words for this document on modules & packages, because many of these concepts can be somewhat tricky and (possibly) unique to Julia. I have recently been reading several questions from new (and sometimes seasoned) Julia users who appear to have a confused mental model of the module/package system.
So my question is mostly to understand if I should make a PR to correct this statement, or find out if I am truly mistaken in my own understanding of the using & import statements.
I want to applaud this goal of language precision. Equivalents (or not) of modules, packages, namespaces, etc are among the important basic distinguishing features of programming languages. Variable scope is another that inspires posts here.
For example, many languages have a import keyword. Learning a new language and assuming the semantics of import are equivalent is fraught with peril.
I also praise your dedication on being precise, but I really did not understood what exactly you were reaching for; if it is “permission” to do a PR I think you should just go for it. Six days ago I did see minor imprecision in a eval/scope phase of the documentation, opened a PR just to change the ending of the phrase, and Stefan just approved and merged it right after. I think that if it is clear to you what should be amended, just open a PR and let the maintainers give a look at it.