<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On May 26, 2021, at 3:28 AM, Spiwack, Arnaud <<a href="mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io" class="">arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">I'm realising that I inverted additional options 1 and 3 in my reply. To spell things out: I'm in favour of the namespace introduced for every datatype and such; and weakly in favour of anonymous modules, for which I prefer the `_` syntax than simply omitting the name.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Oh, good. I was very confused here, but I decided not to push on it. I'm similarly weakly in favor of (1), but I can't get myself to decide firmly on whether to go with alternative (7). Going with (7) is a little more consistent with other features, but it adds more symbols to the source text that could otherwise be omitted. So I'm pretty ambivalent.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Richard</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 11:54 PM Richard Eisenberg <<a href="mailto:rae@richarde.dev" class="">rae@richarde.dev</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;" class=""><br class=""><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On May 25, 2021, at 3:09 PM, Alejandro Serrano Mena <<a href="mailto:trupill@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">trupill@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none" class="">- I am not sure of the benefit of allowing (1), compared with the possible surprise of users.</div><div dir="ltr" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none" class="">- I do not fully understand (2).</div><div dir="ltr" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none" class="">- I think (3) would be great, if we ensure that nothing changes if I don’t use “qualified”, even if -XLocalModules is on.</div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">If in the language, I would use (1) -- anonymous local modules -- regularly, when defining a function or class instance with a bunch of "local" helper functions. Of course, if we can't omit the module name, I will suffer no great harm.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I cannot offer the guarantee you seek in (3), but I don't think you want it. (If nothing changes, then the feature has no effect!) Here is a scenario where (3) could cause trouble:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">import Data.Set as Set ( abcde )</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">data Set = Mk { abcdf :: Int }</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">blah = Set.abcdf</div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Previously, GHC would have suggested that you perhaps misspelled abcde. Now, you'll get (presumably) a type error.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Here's another case:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">import Data.Set as Set ( Set )</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">data Set = Mk</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">x :: Set.Set</div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Everything is happy today, but with -XLocalModules (and (3)), the type of x is an ambiguous name.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Any example that causes trouble, though, will have something in common: an imported module name (possibly via an alias) that matches a locally defined type name. I would imagine this pattern is rare in practice, and that the benefit of (3) would outweigh the number of times that a problem like this bites.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I, too, could live without (2).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Richard</div></div></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>