[Haskell-cafe] Re: Status of TypeDirectedNameResolution proposal?

[levi]

On Nov 18, 9:49 pm, Robert Greayer <robgrea... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 3:10 PM, levi <greenspan.l... at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 8:18 pm, Luke Palmer <lrpal... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > You know, another solution to the records problem, which is not quite
> > > as convenient but much simpler (and has other applications) is to
> > > allow local modules.
>
> > > module Foo where
> > >   module Bar where
> > >     data Bar = Bar { x :: Int, y :: Int }
> > >   module Baz where
> > >     data Baz = Baz { x :: Int, y :: Int }
>
> > >   f a b = Bar.x a + Baz.y b
>
> > +1
>
> > Independent of TDNR I would welcome this. Maybe Ticket 2551 ("Allow
> > multiple modules per source file") [1] should be reconsidered.
>
> Although ticket 2551 is not exactly what Luke is suggesting (which would be
> an extension to the language, whereas, if I'm not mistaken, 2551 is just a
> change to where GHC can find modules, not nesting of modules).

Right. Given the mixed replies to TDNR here so far I wonder if there
is any chance of at least getting some support for this ticket or
maybe even for the nested modules proposal? The current situation
w.r.t. records is really no fun.

Cheers,
Levi