On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:18 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 ? > > Because some modules may have many symbols having that many files > created feels strange. > > Useful for the programmer (me?) would be: > > up to line 200 move to A, from 200 till end move to module B > > Even if you think the way to go is creating 50 files (because you happen > to have 50 symbols) you may want to consider telling the user that he > knows what to expect - and that you welcome patches to make this even > nicer and more useful. > > Marc Weber
Yes, these are issues that should be addressed by layers on top of what I have so far. I could even see this being integrated into an IDE. The split-in-two operation sounds very useful. As does mega-split warning. Moving a single symbol, or a list of symbols, sounds like another great option. I realized that split was not going to be the final solution, but it had a very simple signature and led to the implementation of all the mechanisms these nicer operations will require. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
