[Haskell-cafe] Cyclic Inclusions

[C.M.Brown]

Andrew,

> > But isn't this exactly the point I was trying to make!? The whole point,
> > to me, in functional programming, is that we shouldn't have to worry about
> > the underlying implementation.
>
> It is not exposing an underlying implementation detail to mandate that
> modules should have well-defined interfaces.  If anything, it's
> enforcing good programming practice.

I agree absolutely that having well-defined interfaces is a good
thing. I wasn't actually referring to that, I apologise for not being
clear.

However I saw no real argument for not having cyclic inclusions. You
say we shouldn't have to spend time writing hi-boot files, and yet you also think
that GHC should not do it automatically. So we have to restrict all
programmers to never writing cyclic inclusions?  :)


Kind Regards,
Chris.