Encapsulation is essential for constructing robust software. How could we get rid of that and claim to have a serious language?
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Christian Höner zu Siederdissen <choe...@tbi.univie.ac.at> wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I'd like some input on other peoples' thoughts on this. Recently, I > played around with a library that uses an explicit export list. While > there are reasons for having one: > > - efficiencey (inlining in the module) > - encapsulation > > in practice, it seems to me that they are more annoying than useful. For > once, it would think that ghc should produce efficient good across > modules with -O / -O2 anyway. > But the more important thing is, that it makes extending module > functionality a pain (eg. if a constructor is not exported using (..)). > > So, should I really fork a library just to be able to add a function? > > > > Btw. there are libraries, where an explicit export list is used, that > export the right amount of information. For example, in 'vector' enough > is exported to allow you to extend unboxed vectors. > > _______________________________________________ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users > > _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users