Excerpts from johan.tibell's message of Mon Jun 09 21:53:50 +0200 2008: > On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Ketil Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think designing modules for qualified-only use is a mistake. I also > > think import lists get quite ugly, with multiple instances of > > I was only suggesting avoiding namespacing prefixes/suffixes in > identifiers. Other than that things would be the same. You don't have > to import things as qualified. However, if you're going to try to > avoid using identifiers in your exported interface because they would > collide with other modules I would advice against it. I agree with you > that the module imports get a bit ugly. I prefer that to the > alternative though. > > > Add to this that people will assign a variation of abbreviations for > > modules, we quickly lose consistency. > > It's a shame that we have such deep hierarchies otherwise we wouldn't > need to always alias out module imports. I think Python get's it > right: > > import os > > ... os.tmpname ... > > Duncan's recommendation of just taking the part after the last dot > seems like a good rule of thumb. Doing > > import qualified Data.Map as M > > does gain you much in my opinion. Compare M.empty to emptyM. No > difference, you still can't deduce the module by just looking at the > call site.
Coming from a world where qualified names at call sites or full import (open) are the default rules (OCaml), I much prefer the import way (where you specify names that gets imported) and thus prefer when names don't collide (except for modules like Data.Map or ByteString where I use the "as" notation). The key point for me is to be able to trace as fast as possible what precisely use a module by looking (only) at the top of the file. Best regards, -- Nicolas Pouillard aka Ertai
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
