[Haskell-cafe] Erlang's module discussion

[Alex Rozenshteyn]

Since no-one has yet mentioned it, and I think it might be relevant,
http://types.bu.edu/seminar-modularity/first-class-modules-for-haskell.pdf

I haven't read it with any degree of understanding, but I don't think it's
tractable to remove modules from haskell, nor desirable.

On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Brandon Allbery <allbery.b at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 05:12, Alex Kropivny <alex.kropivny at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Regardless of how crazy it sounds, an idea from Joe Armstrong is worth
> > seriously thinking over.
>
> Possibly, but this is just another manifestation of a general problem
> that nobody has yet managed to solve very nicely.  Admittedly, the way
> Erlang handles its function namespace, it's both easier to consider
> this (due to the only metadata being function name and arity) and
> somewhat sensible to do so (because of the relative lack of
> organization methods, coupled to the lack of metadata).  This won't
> work for any language which needs to use type information in its
> metadata; it's a bad idea for Haskell and an absolute terror to
> contemplate for C++.
>
> > This has bugged me before: think about how we design and write code as
> > project size, or programmer skill grows. You start with composing
> statements
> > inside a single function; later, you start to compose functions inside a
> > single file; later you move on to composing modules; subsystems;
> systems...
> > Different techniques, doing the same thing in different ways, depending
> on
> > the level of complexity. Surely there's some unified approach that can
> > replace them all?
>
> I'd start poking from the direction of (a generalization of) ML
> modules, to be honest.  Said generalization would be a hierarchical,
> parameterizeable namespace, which you could operate on with (possibly
> meta-versions of) the usual Haskell morphisms:  map/fmap, folds,
> zippers, etc.  Or arrows if you prefer that way.
>
> Unfortunately, probably because I'm still pretty much a beginner at
> higher order thinking, when I try to make this notion concrete I end
> up with something rather Template Haskell-ish.  This suggests that I
> should hand it off to someone named Oleg or Simon to chew on and see
> if it can be turned into something useful, usable, and practical....
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>



-- 
          Alex R
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20110528/ff9ce875/attachment.htm>