Since you pass a list of modules to merge, you can (must) specify the order that the symbols will appear in the new module. So it is almost an identity operation, unless the symbols went into the "OtherSymbols" module.
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Felipe Almeida Lessa <felipe.le...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Marc Weber <marco-owe...@gmx.de> wrote: >> Excerpts from David Fox's message of Fri Jun 28 04:04:59 +0200 2013: >>> So you will get modules Start.A, Start.B and Start.C. If there are >> >> But that's very unlikly what the programmer wants. I mean I might want >> Types and Funs as module names, move A,B to Types, C to Funs. >> >> I agree that I could reach my goal using a "merge" afterwards ? > > From what I'm reading, I don't actually agree that the goal may be > reached by using a merge afterwards. I assume that split-then-merge > isn't the same as identity since at very least the order of the > symbols is lost. > > -- > Felipe. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
