John Meacham wrote:
Package names should never appear in source files IMHO. if a package
name is in the source file, then you might as well make it part of the
module name. packages exist for 'meta-organization' of code. A way to
deal with mapping code _outside_ of the language itself, putting
packages inside the code will force the creation of yet another level,
meta-packages, or something. packages should not be a language issue,
they are an environment one.
Indeed, that's the principle we've been following with the package
design up until now. There are (were) two principles:
1. packages should stay out of the language
2. module names should reflect functionality *only*
Sticking to these principles rigidly has left us with a problem, namely
that packages lack proper abstraction properties. A hidden module in a
package is visible externally, because all packages share the module
namespace.
So how do we fix that?
a. we could put package names in module names as you suggest. But
apart from sacrificing the second principle, this doesn't let
you import a module from a package without specifying the exact
version of the package ==> BAD.
b. we could add compiler options that let you graft the module
namespace of a package into the global module namespace at
an arbitrary location.
c. instead of grafting, we add language support to allow importing
modules from a particular package (crucically, you don't have
to specify the version).
We were thinking about (b), when people started suggesting (c).
Although (c) breaks the first principle, in many ways it's rather nicer
than (b). I don't think (a) is a goer at all.
So that's where we are now, if you have a better idea then let's hear it!
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
