Proposal: module namespaces.

[Simon Marlow]

> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Simon Marlow wrote:
> 
> > GHC's package mechanism will actually work pretty much 
> unchanged with
> > this scheme, I believe.
> 
> I hope that module name clashes across packages will not be 
> fatal.

eek!  I thought the reason for having a richer module namespace was so
that we didn't have to allow module shadowing.

> That's
> why it should probably be somewhat unified with the package 
> system, not
> built on top of it.
> 
> I would prefer to be able to just write a full module path in 
> the import
> clause, including the package name, instead of being forced to put
> appropriate -package options in the makefile.

This may be possible too.

Cheers,
	Simon