Re: Hiding module *exports*

2014-10-27 Thread Alexander Berntsen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 I like symmetry. +1 from me. - -- Alexander alexan...@plaimi.net https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

Re: Hiding module *exports*

2014-10-27 Thread Herbert Valerio Riedel
On 2014-10-26 at 20:28:41 +0100, Tom Murphy wrote: [...] I propose that instead, we're able to simply say what we mean: module Foo hiding (Lockbox(MkLockbox), internalFunction) where I think its semantics are immediately clear to the reader. There's a little bit of bikeshedding that

Re: Hiding module *exports*

2014-10-27 Thread Alois Cochard
+1 from me I was looking for the feature a few times. On 26 October 2014 19:28, Tom Murphy amin...@gmail.com wrote: (Not to be confused with the hiding import behavior discussion also going on) -- Currently, I'm able to write module Foo where to export everything defined in Foo. If,

Re: Hiding module *exports*

2014-10-27 Thread Herbert Valerio Riedel
On 2014-10-26 at 20:28:41 +0100, Tom Murphy wrote: [...] module Foo hiding (Lockbox(MkLockbox), internalFunction) where I think its semantics are immediately clear to the reader. There's a little bit of bikeshedding that needs to happen (e.g. is hiding (Foo(..)) sufficient to hide the

Re: Hiding module *exports*

2014-10-27 Thread Daniel Trstenjak
Hi Tom, +1 There's a little bit of bikeshedding that needs to happen (e.g. is hiding (Foo (..)) sufficient to hide the type Foo and not just its constructors), but are people +1 on this? I've frequently wanted this behavior. I would be surprised if 'Foo(..)' would mean in this case

Re: Hiding module *exports*

2014-10-27 Thread Erik Hesselink
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Daniel Trstenjak daniel.trsten...@gmail.com wrote: There's a little bit of bikeshedding that needs to happen (e.g. is hiding (Foo (..)) sufficient to hide the type Foo and not just its constructors), but are people +1 on this? I've frequently wanted this

Re: Hiding module *exports*

2014-10-27 Thread amindfv
El Oct 27, 2014, a las 7:42, Herbert Valerio Riedel h...@gnu.org escribió: On 2014-10-26 at 20:28:41 +0100, Tom Murphy wrote: [...] module Foo hiding (Lockbox(MkLockbox), internalFunction) where I think its semantics are immediately clear to the reader. There's a little bit of

Re: Hiding module *exports*

2014-10-27 Thread amindfv
El Oct 27, 2014, a las 9:57, Erik Hesselink hessel...@gmail.com escribió: On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Daniel Trstenjak daniel.trsten...@gmail.com wrote: There's a little bit of bikeshedding that needs to happen (e.g. is hiding (Foo (..)) sufficient to hide the type Foo and not just its

Re: Hiding module *exports*

2014-10-27 Thread David Feuer
+1. On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Tom Murphy amin...@gmail.com wrote: (Not to be confused with the hiding import behavior discussion also going on) -- Currently, I'm able to write module Foo where to export everything defined in Foo. If, though, I add to the module some definitions

Hiding module *exports*

2014-10-26 Thread Tom Murphy
(Not to be confused with the hiding import behavior discussion also going on) -- Currently, I'm able to write module Foo where to export everything defined in Foo. If, though, I add to the module some definitions which I don't want to export... data Lockbox = MkLockbox Int

Re: Hiding module *exports*

2014-10-26 Thread Merijn Verstraaten
Strong +1 from me, this is *especially* annoying when you want to selectively re-export parts of a module from somewhere or in case of exports generated by TH. Cheers, Merijn On 26 Oct 2014, at 12:28, Tom Murphy amin...@gmail.com wrote: (Not to be confused with the hiding import behavior