Why do you say "every name and operator" ? Why do you say "fully qualified" ? When there is some clash, hiding the offending name or importing "qualified as" is quite satisfying imho.
Thu 2009/2/13 John A. De Goes <j...@n-brain.net>: > > The signal-to-noise ratio with fully qualified names/operators goes way down > -- that's the need. > > Go take one of your programs and fully qualify every name and every > operator. Doesn't look so pretty then, does it? And it wouldn't be easy to > read, either. > > Regards, > > John A. De Goes > N-BRAIN, Inc. > The Evolution of Collaboration > > http://www.n-brain.net | 877-376-2724 x 101 > > On Feb 13, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Henning Thielemann wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, John A. De Goes wrote: >> >>> In any case, no one has really addressed the original poster's question: >>> No, "name overloading" is not possible in Haskell, and surprisingly, there >>> are no blocking technical issues why this must be the case. >> >> Prefixing names with module names is good style: >> http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Qualified_names >> Where is the need for more overloading? >> > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
