nhn at Cs.Nott.AC.UK
Wed Feb 22 06:29:28 EST 2006
Simon M. wrote:
> This is not the first time that someone has made the same suggestion
> as Georg, and for good reasons: there's a lack of modularity in the
> current design, such that renaming the root of a module hierarchy
> requires editing every single source file in the hierarchy.
Point taken. (I did say that Georg's proposal had its merits, and this
is basically what I meant.)
> I don't have anything concrete to say (sorry!) except that I'm not
> convinced that the language spec should require a module to declare
> its full name in the source code any more.
Personally, I like the fact that the module names are explicitly there,
but again, yes I can certainly see that it can be inconvenient.
But as always, how much "refactoring support" should there be in
the language, and what does properly belong in tools?
Anyway, I'm not fundamentally opposed to more flexible imports,
I'm only worried about too many environmental dependencies unnecessarily
infiltrating the language spec.
As long as a discussion would be in terms of a hierarchical
module name space (or some other language-centred notion like
that), I have no objects to the discussion as such.
> I certainly don't believe that
> the language spec should say anything at all about file systems, but
> it should be open to the possibility that "unspecified
> implementation-dependent behaviour" might affect how module
> definitions are paired with import declarations.
Yes, that might be necessary in the end.
School of Computer Science and Information Technology
The University of Nottingham
nhn at cs.nott.ac.uk
This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
More information about the Haskell-prime