32. Vitte Stdlib Catalog

Level: intermediate · Reading time: 20 min · Prerequisite: book/chapters/31-build-errors.html · Track: supplemental · Maturity: draft · Last review: 2026-05-09

TL;DR (5 lines)

Modules are ownership boundaries.
Imports should reveal architecture, not hide it.
Public surface and internal detail should be easy to distinguish.
Import misuse is a structural error, not style noise.
Good module docs connect layout and responsibility.

Frequent mistakes

Using module pages as import syntax cheat sheets only.
Importing too much because boundaries were never designed.
Putting module-surface declarations inside local blocks.

Prerequisites: book/chapters/31-build-errors.html. See also: book/chapters/31-build-errors.html, book/chapters/27-grammar.html, book/chapters/31-build-errors.html.

Concrete Problem

Module chapters often stop at import syntax and never explain ownership boundaries across files and packages.

Red Thread (Single Project)

A tiny application is split into a domain module, a service module, and an entry module.

For what

This chapter helps the reader structure code so that imports reflect ownership instead of accident.

Work in this chapter

You will inspect a small module layout, identify public vs local boundaries, then inspect an import misuse.

Coherent example

space demo/modules

use demo/report.{build_summary} as report

proc run() -> int {
  give report.build_summary()
}

proc main(args: list[string]) -> int {
  give run()
}

export *

Complete examples

Each block below is a complete reading unit with its own boundary, data shape, and observable result.

Primary coherent example

This is the compact chapter anchor used by the surrounding explanation.

space demo/modules

use demo/report.{build_summary} as report

proc run() -> int {
  give report.build_summary()
}

proc main(args: list[string]) -> int {
  give run()
}

export *

Facade module boundary

This complete block models a small facade that keeps the public surface narrow.

space examples/modules/facade

use examples/modules/report.{build_summary} as report

proc run_report() -> int {
  let status: int = report.build_summary()
  if status != 0 { give status }
  give 0
}

proc main(args: list[string]) -> int {
  give run_report()
}

export *

Local module responsibility

This module keeps validation local and exposes one stable procedure.

space examples/modules/report

form ReportConfig {
  name: string
  rows: int
}

proc build_summary() -> int {
  let cfg: ReportConfig = ReportConfig { name: "daily", rows: 4 }
  if cfg.name == "" { give 11 }
  if cfg.rows <= 0 { give 12 }
  give 0
}

export *

Immediate work for this chapter

Show one facade module and one local responsibility module.
Keep imports at the module surface, not inside local procedure bodies.
Make public surface smaller than implementation detail.
Keep the first code block complete and aligned with current Vitte docs syntax.
Keep the invalid block focused on one broken contract only.
Replace generic prose with one concrete rule visible in the code.
Keep every example small enough to review from top to bottom.

Chapter override: 32-modules-catalog.html

Dedicated problem

32. Vitte Stdlib Catalog needs a concrete production-grade anchor around private helper, public surface, and imported dependency. The page should keep the examples, diagnostics, and review rules tied to that exact boundary instead of drifting back to generic tutorial prose.

Specific complete examples

32. Vitte Stdlib Catalog chapter anchor

The primary example is promoted here as the first chapter-specific production reading unit.

space demo/modules

use demo/report.{build_summary} as report

proc run() -> int {
  give report.build_summary()
}

proc main(args: list[string]) -> int {
  give run()
}

export *

Facade module boundary

This complete block models a small facade that keeps the public surface narrow.

space examples/modules/facade

use examples/modules/report.{build_summary} as report

proc run_report() -> int {
  let status: int = report.build_summary()
  if status != 0 { give status }
  give 0
}

proc main(args: list[string]) -> int {
  give run_report()
}

export *

Local module responsibility

This module keeps validation local and exposes one stable procedure.

space examples/modules/report

form ReportConfig {
  name: string
  rows: int
}

proc build_summary() -> int {
  let cfg: ReportConfig = ReportConfig { name: "daily", rows: 4 }
  if cfg.name == "" { give 11 }
  if cfg.rows <= 0 { give 12 }
  give 0
}

export *

Risks and diagnostics

Risk	Diagnostic signal	Action
Boundary drift	The chapter loses sight of private helper, public surface, and imported dependency.	Restate the boundary beside the first code block and every invalid case.
Generic prose	A paragraph would still be true in another chapter.	Replace it with a code-specific rule from this page.
Weak diagnostic	The failure does not point back to the chapter contract.	Reduce the invalid case until one failure explains the rule.

Review checklist

The first example is complete and aligned with Vitte docs syntax.
The production section names where this construct belongs in real code.
The risk table connects each failure to a diagnostic or review action.
The avoid list rejects broad misuse without adding quiz-like prompts.

Production use

Use this chapter when a code review needs to preserve private helper, public surface, and imported dependency.
Keep examples small enough to copy into fixtures or docs smoke tests.
Treat the invalid case as regression material for future docs checks.

What to avoid

Do not add a second topic that hides the chapter's main contract.
Do not expand examples by adding unrelated subsystems.
Do not rely on prose when a small Vitte block can show the rule.

Global explanation

The point of a modules chapter is not the import token itself. The point is ownership: what belongs together, what should stay private, and what the public surface of a module should look like.

Invalid case

proc bad_module() -> int {
  use demo/report
  give 0
}

This invalid case is intentionally small. It exists to isolate the contract failure that the chapter is trying to teach.

Common pitfalls

Using module pages as import syntax cheat sheets only.
Importing too much because boundaries were never designed.
Putting module-surface declarations inside local blocks.

Short exercise

Split one procedure from the example into another logical module and keep the public boundary explicit.

Summary in 5 points

Modules are ownership boundaries.
Imports should reveal architecture, not hide it.
Public surface and internal detail should be easy to distinguish.
Import misuse is a structural error, not style noise.
Good module docs connect layout and responsibility.

Next best action

Extend the coherent example by one small, justified step and keep the same contract visible from input to output.

Chapter deep dive

32. Vitte Stdlib Catalog turns file organization into ownership. The chapter is written for a reader deciding what belongs together.

The practical boundary is: private helper, public surface, and imported dependency. Keep that boundary in view while reading the example, the invalid case, and the exercise.

Role in the learning path

Module chapters often stop at import syntax and never explain ownership boundaries across files and packages.

A tiny application is split into a domain module, a service module, and an entry module.

This chapter helps the reader structure code so that imports reflect ownership instead of accident.

Profile-specific deep dive

Public surface

Imports belong at the module surface so ownership is visible before behavior.
The facade should expose one stable procedure rather than every helper.
Public names should describe responsibility, not file layout.

Private implementation

Validation and construction can remain local to the module that owns the data.
Implementation helpers should stay behind the facade until another module needs them.
A module split is justified only when it reduces coupling or clarifies ownership.

Layout discipline

Use one module for entry orchestration and another for domain responsibility.
Avoid imports inside procedure bodies unless the docs intentionally teach that exception.
Keep circular dependency risks visible in the invalid case or diagnostics.

Reading the valid example

space demo/modules: names the ownership boundary before any behavior appears.
use demo/report.{build_summary} as report: declares an external dependency instead of hiding it inside the flow.
proc run() -> int {: states the callable contract: inputs first, result shape last.
give report.build_summary(): ends the local path with an explicit result.
}: supports the chapter contract without adding hidden behavior.
proc main(args: list[string]) -> int {: states the callable contract: inputs first, result shape last.
give run(): ends the local path with an explicit result.
}: supports the chapter contract without adding hidden behavior.
export *: supports the chapter contract without adding hidden behavior.

Lesson from the invalid example

proc bad_module() -> int {: this line helps isolate the failure because it states the callable contract: inputs first, result shape last.
use demo/report: this line helps isolate the failure because it declares an external dependency instead of hiding it inside the flow.
give 0: this line helps isolate the failure because it ends the local path with an explicit result.
}: this line helps isolate the failure because it supports the chapter contract without adding hidden behavior.

Engineering decisions to preserve

Name the boundary before changing code: Modules are ownership boundaries.
Keep the smallest example executable: Imports should reveal architecture, not hide it.
Make the invalid path explain one failure only: Public surface and internal detail should be easy to distinguish.
Prefer a visible contract over an implied convention: Import misuse is a structural error, not style noise.
Leave a review anchor that another maintainer can verify: Good module docs connect layout and responsibility.

Context-specific review criteria

The page makes the private helper, public surface, and imported dependency boundary visible before the first code block.
The intended reader, a reader deciding what belongs together, can follow the valid example through named contracts instead of memorized tokens.
The invalid example fails for the same reason the prose discusses.
The exercise extends the same contract instead of introducing an unrelated concept.
The next chapter can reuse the vocabulary introduced here without redefining it.
The chapter stays specific enough that its title materially changes the meaning of the page.
Every warning connects to a concrete code shape.
The summary leaves one durable engineering rule behind.

Contract matrix

Concern	Chapter rule	Evidence to keep
Ownership	Code belongs behind the boundary named by the chapter.	The chapter keeps ownership visible through private helper, public surface, and imported dependency.
Input contract	The procedure receives a shape that is named before branching.	The valid example names the accepted shape before branching.
Nominal path	The clean path remains readable without hidden state.	The successful result can be found without reading hidden state.
Failure path	The invalid case isolates one failure reason.	The broken example has one main reason to fail.
Naming	Names explain the domain rather than only the mechanism.	Names remain tied to the chapter goal.
Types	Types remove ambiguity from values and results.	Fields and return values carry domain meaning.
Control flow	Branches stay traceable from guard to result.	Guards appear before the result they protect.
Module boundary	The public surface stays smaller than implementation detail.	The public surface remains smaller than the implementation detail.
Diagnostic value	The failure path points back to the exact contract.	The invalid example points back to the exact contract.
Test value	Regression evidence covers one passing path and one failing path.	One passing case and one failing case cover the lesson.
Refactor value	Implementation cleanup preserves the result shape.	The result shape stays stable during local cleanup.
Publication value	The chapter leaves one concrete engineering rule.	The chapter leaves one concrete engineering rule.

Rewrite path for this chapter

Rewrite the opening paragraph so it names private helper, public surface, and imported dependency before naming syntax.
Keep the valid example small enough that the full contract fits on screen.
Move any broad claim back to a specific line in the example.
Preserve one invalid case that fails for the chapter's main reason.
Add one sentence explaining why the invalid case is not a random error.
Make every pitfall actionable by naming the code shape it damages.
Keep the exercise inside the same domain as the example.
Avoid introducing a second unrelated project just to show variety.
Use the summary to restate the chapter rule, not the table of contents.
Check that the next chapter can build on this vocabulary.
Remove any sentence that would still be true in every other chapter.
Keep the last action small, local, and testable.

Diagnostic anchors

The first inspected line is the one that declares the chapter's main contract.
The central type, field, procedure, or branch carries the chapter's main idea.
The invalid example includes a sentence-level explanation of its failure.
Refactors preserve the detail that would otherwise mislead a future reader.
The behavior that must stay stable is named before implementation changes begin.
Vague names are replaced before they become review friction.
Regression coverage protects the chapter's main contract.
Implementation details stay out of public API unless the chapter explicitly teaches that surface.
Beginner-facing diagnostics point to the contract, not to a random syntax detail.
The next chapter can assume one clearly named concept from this page.

When extending this chapter

Extend toward a reader deciding what belongs together, not toward a broader catalog of features.
Add a second example only if it sharpens the same contract.
Prefer a small variant over a new subsystem.
Keep prose close to code; every abstract claim should point to a visible shape.
Do not hide a new concept in the exercise.
If a paragraph explains policy, add the concrete code boundary it protects.
If a paragraph explains syntax, add the semantic reason the syntax matters.
If a paragraph explains architecture, identify the owner of each boundary.
If a paragraph explains failure, keep the failing line close to the explanation.
Stop expanding when the chapter has one complete, testable lesson.

Failure modes to avoid

Using module pages as import syntax cheat sheets only.
Importing too much because boundaries were never designed.
Putting module-surface declarations inside local blocks.

Practice scenario

Start from the coherent example in 32. Vitte Stdlib Catalog. Change one identifier, one guard, and one returned value. After each change, write down whether the public contract is still the same contract or a new one.

If the contract changed, update the type or result shape first. If only the implementation changed, keep the external name stable and add one regression note explaining what should not change again.

Before moving on

You can state the chapter role: turns file organization into ownership.
You can point to the main boundary: private helper, public surface, and imported dependency.
You can connect the invalid case to the problem statement: Module chapters often stop at import syntax and never explain ownership boundaries across files and packages.
You can perform the exercise: Split one procedure from the example into another logical module and keep the public boundary explicit.