[Haskell-cafe] Re: Packages and modules

[Brian Hulley]

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 
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/GhcPackagesAlternativeProposal 
(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.

http://www.metamilk.com