It should be good enough (for what you're talking about) to hide them all. Turn
import A (foo) import B (bar) import C hiding (baz) import D into import A (foo) import B (bar) import C hiding (foo,bar,baz) import D hiding (foo,bar) There's no reason to worry about hiding nonexistent identifiers, I don't think. On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:10 PM, htebalaka <goodi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well I suppose tooling might need to be aware of the feature depending on > what it does, but I don't see why the code actually typechecking would need > to be dependent on ordering. When I say shadowing I don't mean explicitly > having any explicit import create a new scope, since in that case it would > be sensitive to re-ordering, which I agree would be bad. My thought would > be > first you would need to parse all the imports to see which identifiers they > import, then do another pass to change the imports to hide any identifiers > that should be shadowed. > > So in the example I gave you would need to be aware that Foo exports x, > because otherwise there would be no way to know that x needs to be hidden > from Bar. I assume GHC already would have access to that information > though. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/Hiding-import-behaviour-tp5758155p5758161.html > Sent from the Haskell - Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. > _______________________________________________ > 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
