[Haskell] Hierarchical module namespace extensionnotsufficiently flexible

Simon Marlow simonmar at microsoft.com
Thu Mar 10 04:15:57 EST 2005

On 10 March 2005 00:14, Iavor Diatchki wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 23:09:26 -0000, Simon Marlow
> <simonmar at microsoft.com> wrote: 
>> I'm not in favour of this proposal, i.e. point (2) from your original
>> message[1].  I don't think I fully understand it: is there a mistake
>> in the last example of point (2)?  The other examples can be
>> achieved in a clearer way with a 'qualified module' export.
>> [1]
>> http://www.haskell.org//pipermail/libraries/2005-March/003404.html 
> I am not sure if it is a good idea either.   There indeed was a bug in
> the last example of both (2) and (3), the imports should both have an
> "as T" in the end.
> The difference between (2) and (3) is what _unqualified_ names get
> introduced in the importing module.   In (2) one would get unqualified
> names as usual, but the qualified names would have an additional
> prefix.  In (3) there is no way to get unqiualified names at all.  I
> am not sure that there are situations where (2) is neccessary, but I
> don't think this effect can be achieved using only (3).  I agree that
> we should perhaps go with the simplest and only have alternative (3).

I challenge you to find something you can do with (2) but not with the
existing module system + 'qualified module' exports.

On the other hand, if you don't care about (2), can we forget about it
and simplify the discussion?  I don't think anyone else was asking for


More information about the Libraries mailing list