On 15 July 2005 09:48, Henning Thielemann wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
>> 2) enshrining one-type-per-module in the naming convention is not IMO
>> justified, and may prove limiting;
>
> Other languages like Modula-3 and Oberon do it with great success. The
> limit in Haskell is that most compilers don't conform to the Haskell
> 98 report which allows mutually recursive modules. But I think the
> compilers should allow them instead of forcing users to put many type
> and class definitions into one module.
I hope you weren't including GHC in "most compilers" :-) GHC's
implementation of mutually recursive modules is conformant with Haskell
98 (see Section 5.7).
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
