[GHC] #10478: Shorter import syntax

[GHC]

#10478: Shorter import syntax
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
        Reporter:  acowley           |                   Owner:
            Type:  feature request   |                  Status:  new
        Priority:  normal            |               Milestone:
       Component:  Compiler          |                 Version:  7.10.1
      Resolution:                    |                Keywords:
Operating System:  Unknown/Multiple  |            Architecture:
                                     |  Unknown/Multiple
 Type of failure:  None/Unknown      |               Test Case:
      Blocked By:                    |                Blocking:
 Related Tickets:                    |  Differential Revisions:  Phab:D1238
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by thomie):

 acowley: you could avoid the confusion by saying `import A (x) as B (..)`.
 But I'm not sure that's worth it.

 Summary of the previous [https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-
 cafe/2015-June/119942.html mailinglist discussion] and
 [https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/38vsef/proposal_shorter_import_syntax/
 reddit] thread:
 * A lot (15?) of people on the mailinglist were in favour of acowley's
 proposal, or at least for some form of shorter import syntax.
 * Only [https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-
 cafe/2015-June/119958.html one] person was specifically in favour of
 goldfire's proposal. I think this low number had more to do with the
 proposal not being presented very clearly than anything else, given how
 similar the two proposals are.
 * A few people were (strongly) against acowley's proposal, all citing
 [https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2015-June/119982.html
 Richard O'Keefe's mail].
 *
 [https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/38vsef/proposal_shorter_import_syntax/
 reddit] seemed firmly against acowley's proposal as well (the top comment
 has 12 votes and starts with "-1"). This is the reason I think we should
 proceed carefully here.

 I don't think this is going to go anywhere without someone writing a
 [https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Proposal proposal page] on the
 wiki, with specifications of the 2 options and the above table, and then
 having another round of discussion on the mailinglist.

 If one of you could get behind the other person's proposal, that would
 make things easier as well.

--
Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10478#comment:17>
GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/>
The Glasgow Haskell Compiler