Packages and modules

Brian Hulley brianh at
Wed Jul 5 14:14:01 EDT 2006

Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>> So instead of just taking this simple solution, the wiki proposal is
>> instead destroying the beauty of the per-package namespace idea by
>> incorporating into it the existing shared namespaces with their
>> attendant problems, instead of just letting the existing messy
>> system die a natural death through the syntactic isolation I
>> proposed.
> Brian,
> I think your proposal may be clearer to you than to everyone else.
> It's always hard to reconstruct a detailed proposal by reading long
> email threads.
> Suggestion: if you feel strongly about this, why not start a Wiki page
> (you can link to it from the current one) to describe the design you
> propose, at a comparable level of detail?
> Incidentally, compatibility with Cabal is a significant goal.

Hi Simon -
Actually re-reading my post  I realised I may have sounded a bit negative 
about the hard work you'd done to collate the various responses to form the 
wiki proposal - my apologies.

I've followed your suggestion and made a separate page at 
(linked from the bottom of the existing page)which will hopefully make my 
ideas a lot clearer. I've also changed my proposed syntax so that it is 100% 
backwards compatible (no new keywords) with the existing module system and 
language (and existing package naming rules).

Regards, Brian.

Logic empowers us and Love gives us purpose.
Yet still phantoms restless for eras long past,
congealed in the present in unthought forms,
strive mightily unseen to destroy us. 

More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list