My point is that if you would rather not get that error when J changes,
you need to use explicit import lists:

 

Module M

import I (foo)

import J ()

 

definitioninModuleM = foo

 

Lennart's proposed change makes explicit import lists unnecessary for
the case where foo is defined inside M rather than being imported from I
- but as it doesn't avoid the need for them in general I'm not sure that
it is worth it.

 

Ganesh 

 

 

From: Manuel M T Chakravarty [mailto:c...@cse.unsw.edu.au] 
Sent: 25 July 2012 10:25
To: Sittampalam, Ganesh
Cc: Lennart Augustsson; Haskell Prime
Subject: Re: Proposal: Scoping rule change

 

"Sittampalam, Ganesh" <ganesh.sittampa...@credit-suisse.com>:

        The "... foo ..." in my example was intended to show that module
M does look up 'foo'.

 

I did read that as foo is both defined and used in the body. In that
case, everything should work just fine.

 

If you use, but do not define foo, then you definitely want to get an
error if J exports foo in the future. So, I think, that is fine.

 

Manuel

 

         

        From: Manuel M T Chakravarty [mailto:c...@cse.unsw.edu.au
<http://cse.unsw.edu.au> ] 
        Sent: 25 July 2012 08:26
        To: Sittampalam, Ganesh
        Cc: Lennart Augustsson; Haskell Prime
        Subject: Re: Proposal: Scoping rule change

         

        If Lennart's suggestion is combined with GHC's lazy checking for
name clashes (i.e., only check if you ever look a name up in a
particular scope), it would also work in your example.

         

        Manuel

         

        "Sittampalam, Ganesh" <ganesh.sittampa...@credit-suisse.com
<mailto:ganesh.sittampa...@credit-suisse.com> >:

                If you're using unqualified and unrestricted imports,
there's still the risk that another module will export something you
care about, e.g.

                 

                module M where

                import I  -- currently exports foo

                import J  -- might be changed in future to export foo

                 

                ... foo ...

                 

                So I think you need to use import lists or qualified
anyway to avoid any risk of future name clashes - given that, does this
change buy much?

                 

                From: haskell-prime-boun...@haskell.org
<mailto:haskell-prime-boun...@haskell.org>
[mailto:haskell-prime-boun...@haskell.org
<mailto:prime-boun...@haskell.org> ] On Behalf Of Lennart Augustsson
                Sent: 24 July 2012 02:29
                To: Haskell Prime
                Subject: Proposal: Scoping rule change

                 

                It's not often that one gets the chance to change
something as

                fundamental as the scoping rules of a language.
Nevertheless, I would

                like to propose a change to Haskell's scoping rules.

                 

                The change is quite simple.  As it is, top level
entities in a module

                are in the same scope as all imported entities.  I
suggest that this

                is changed to that the entities from the module are in
an inner scope

                and do not clash with imported identifiers.

                 

                Why?  Consider the following snippet

                 

                    module M where

                    import I

                    foo = True

                 

                Assume this compiles.  Now change the module I so it
exports something

                called foo.  After this change the module M no longer
compiles since

                (under the current scoping rules) the imported foo
clashes with the

                foo in M.

                 

                Pros: Module compilation becomes more robust under
library changes.

                Fewer imports with hiding are necessary.

                 

                Cons: There's the chance that you happen to define a
module identifier

                with the same name as something imported.  This will
typically lead to

                a type error, but there is a remote chance it could have
the same

                type.

                 

                Implementation status: The Mu compiler has used the
scoping rule for

                several years now and it works very well in practice.

                 

                  -- Lennart

                 

                 

        
========================================================================
======
                Please access the attached hyperlink for an important
electronic communications disclaimer:
        
http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html
<http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html> 
        
========================================================================
======

                
                _______________________________________________
                Haskell-prime mailing list
                Haskell-prime@haskell.org
<mailto:Haskell-prime@haskell.org> 
                http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
<http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime> 

         

         

        
========================================================================
======
        Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
communications disclaimer:
        http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html
<http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html> 
        
========================================================================
======

 


=============================================================================== 
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications 
disclaimer: 
http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html 
=============================================================================== 

_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime

Reply via email to