[Haskell-cafe] Are explicit exports and local imports desirable in a production application?

[Isaac Elliott]

I don't think that it's unreasonable in general to expect people to explore
a codebase via IDE tooling. But given Haskell's current situation on that
front, I currently agree with your approach to Haskell imports/exports.

Ignat, I agree with you that explicit imports/exports involve unnecessary
typing. I call this "busywork". Explicit exports still seem valuable for
encapsulation, avoiding name clashes, and in the case of GHC they unlock a
bit more optimisation.

In this case I think that we should automate that busywork, and hopefully
the recent Haskell IDE work gives us a path in that direction.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2020, 3:54 am Olaf Klinke, <olf at aatal-apotheke.de> wrote:

> Dear Ignat,
>
> have you seen
> https://wiki.haskell.org/Import_modules_properly
> https://wiki.haskell.org/Qualified_names
>
> I find the arguments convincing. Even in my own packages I sometimes
> get lost where a certain function was imported from. When neither
> exports nor imports are done explicitly, you usually have only two
> choices:
> 1. search all sources (e.g. with grep -l)
> 2. rely on the haddock index
> Maybe your IDE can do that for you, but you can't expect all downstream
> users or all your colleagues to do the same.
>
> -- Olaf
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
> Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20200918/36cf20fb/attachment.html>