[ghc-steering-committee] #216: Qualified Do again, recommendation: accept the alternative

[Eric Seidel]

I see, I misunderstood the point of contention. I still support your recommendations, but it seems like a rather minor issue. My guess is that (in particular if we keep the standard names for the operations) most people will opt to use qualified imports, which means the identifiers will all be in scope anyway.

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020, at 10:19, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> HI,
> 
> Am Dienstag, den 14.04.2020, 10:00 -0500 schrieb Eric Seidel:
> > If we allow "M.do" without explicitly importing M, building the
> > module dependency graph suddenly requires parsing the entire module
> > rather than just the preamble. How much of a concern is this for
> > compilation times?
> 
> that isn’t the plan. You still have to import a module called M! The
> question is whether you _also_ have to import M.(>>), or whether it’s
> import to import a _module_ and give it a name.
> 
> Cheers,
> Joachim
> -- 
> Joachim Breitner
>   mail at joachim-breitner.de
>   http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>