On Thursday, April 25, 2002, at 09:20 , Martin Norbäck wrote: > tor 2002-04-25 klockan 01.07 skrev Johan Nordlander: >> One might also argue that the problem is these extra roots that >> are implicitly added to the search path. Arguably, dropping the >> current directory and the directory of the importing module from >> the search path would solve the problems listed above. But >> there's still a possibility to list overlapping directories in >> the search path proper, so dropping the implicit directories >> wouldn't really cure the disease, only make it less prominent. >> Furthermore, this feature is there because it has been in Hugs >> for a long time, and many people seem to rely on it quite >> heavily. > > But how would adding the directory of an importing module make any > difference? > > Assuming non-hierarchical names, if the importing module is found, then > it's directory already must be in the seach path. So there is no reason > to add it.
This is useful in combination with another traditional Hugs feature: to load or import a module using its concrete filename. That is, if I write :l "/some/exotic/directory/module.hs" the directory "/some/exotic/directory/" is implicitly added to the search path during processing of any import clauses within module.hs. I admit that it is a dubious feature, but it (too) seems to be widely in use. >> All in all, dropping all implicit directories from the search >> path gets my vote. > > Dropping all implicit directories but the current directory gets mine. A reasonable compromise, although it wouldn't address the last two examples of module confusion that Alastair reported. -- Johan _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
