[Haskell-cafe] Re: Design your modules for qualified import

[Jan-Willem Maessen]

On Jun 6, 2008, at 12:54 PM, Henning Thielemann wrote:

>
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Achim Schneider wrote:
>
>> Jan-Willem Maessen <jmaessen at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> There's one caveat: Always choose descriptive names, even if you are
>>> assuming that you will usually use a qualified import.  The
>>> following are wonderful names, even though they conflict with the
>>> prelude: null
>>>   filter
>>>   map
>>>   lookup
>>>
>> import Prelude as P

Precisely.  If I import the prelude qualified and your library  
unqualified, is my code readable?  I should hope it is.  And if the  
library used the overlapping names reasonably, you shouldn't be left  
wondering when you read my code.

>>> The following are terrible names:
>>>   T
>>>   C
>>
>> Not to mention that this usage is hideously confusing while looking  
>> at
>> the haddock docs.
>
> But that will be resolved when Haddock can show identifiers with
> qualifications.

I specifically *didn't* bring up the Haddock issue, because I think  
it's a side show.  Fundamentally, these types are neither clear nor  
descriptive.  Their treatment by one or another documentation tool is,  
at some level, beside the point.

> It's good to have fine grained modules, because you can more easily
> exchange the parts you want different from the standard way. For  
> reducing
> import lists for simple songs I think we could provide wrapper  
> modules.

Make your modules as small as you like; small modules are great.  But  
keep things readable, please!

-Jan

>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe