Andrew, > > But isn't this exactly the point I was trying to make!? The whole point, > > to me, in functional programming, is that we shouldn't have to worry about > > the underlying implementation. > > It is not exposing an underlying implementation detail to mandate that > modules should have well-defined interfaces. If anything, it's > enforcing good programming practice.
I agree absolutely that having well-defined interfaces is a good thing. I wasn't actually referring to that, I apologise for not being clear. However I saw no real argument for not having cyclic inclusions. You say we shouldn't have to spend time writing hi-boot files, and yet you also think that GHC should not do it automatically. So we have to restrict all programmers to never writing cyclic inclusions? :) Kind Regards, Chris. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
