[Haskell-cafe] Re: Numeric Prelude and identifiers

[Kalman Noel]

Henning Thielemann schrieb:
> 
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Kalman Noel wrote:
> 
>> I'm not complaining, and I'm not sure what I mean :) I may like a scheme
>> where functions operating on a type or type class live in a module
>> seperate from the type (class) definition, so you could import a
>> specific module to get only, say, (Ring, (*), one, ...).  But that would
>> be too tedious in the Haskell hierarchical module system, which is why I
>> was asking about others.
> 
> It was precisely my goal to bundle the type with the functions that
> operate on it. Why do you want to separate them?

Sorry for the huge delay. Here are some reasons why I think such a
seperation can be handy:

 (1) If I need an import just to be able to write a type annotation
     (e.g.  I'm passing around a value of that type, but not doing
     anything specific to it), then I can just import a module that
     gives me the relevant types.

 (2) Similarly, I can, say, calculate with complex numbers and refer
     to them as Complex Double without importing (qualified) the
     Complex implementations of exp, signum etc., which I won't ever
     have to use directly, thanks to the relevant type class instances.

 (3) I can refer to a Ring as a Ring, rather than a Ring.C.


(1) may not be so important, given that I can just write an import list.
(2) means seperating interface and implementation (without hiding the
implementation). (3) is just a matter of taste.