[Haskell-cafe] Cyclic Inclusions

C.M.Brown cmb21 at kent.ac.uk
Wed Aug 13 07:15:08 EDT 2008


> > 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

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,

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list