[Haskell-cafe] One-shot? (was: Global variables and stuff)

[Robert Dockins]

> Should values really depend on the order of includes? Even if you limit 
> things to just
> newChan in top level '<-' you still don't know if A.a in B the same A.a 
> in C. Perhaps it
> is enough to say  A.a only exists once no matter how many times it is 
> directly or
> indirectly imported?

This strikes me as the only sane thing to do.  Are there any reasons you 
might want C.A.a to be different than B.A.a?

In addition, perhaps we should require that modules using TWIs not have 
cicular dependancies.  Then all init actions can be topo sorted by 
dependencies.

Would those restrictions solve the problems that have been floating aroud?