Module System

Simon Marlow simonmar at
Thu Feb 23 06:28:24 EST 2006

On 22 February 2006 14:55, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:

> Simon Marlow wrote:
>> 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.  The only good
>> reason for this is the separation between language and
>> implementation. 
> I don't see how this is related to implementation. Surely all the
> language spec has to say is that the implementation has some
> unspecified way of finding the code for a module given only its
> canonical name,

The point is that currently the language definition includes everything
necessary to determine the meaning of a multi-module program.  Losing
this property is unfortunate, but probably ultimately necessary.

To answer your question, yes - the spec would have to refer to an
implementation-defined way to pair module definitions with import


More information about the Haskell-prime mailing list