Re: parameterisable modules, the lack thereof ...

[Stephen J Bevan]

   Everyone now acknowledges that Haskell's modules are the weakest part
   of the language, and people are working on ways to fix that (yes,
   someday I hope there will be a Haskell 2).

Are any details available as to what directions this work is taking?
I'm aware of of some work to extend type classes but I'm more
interested in any approaches which don't necessarily require
overloading (my candidate for the weakest part of the language btw).

bevan

Re: parameterisable modules, the lack thereof ...

[hudak-paul]

  At the risk of opening old wounds: why weren't ML/FX style modules
  included in Haskell?  I can think of a number of possible reasons, but
  I'm interested in the "official" reason for leaving out such an
  important feature.

Other committee members may have different recollections, but here's
mine:  no one really thought the extra complexity was worth it.  Before
you or others tell me that I'm wrong, or that type classes are at least
as complex yet we adopted them, let me just say that I'm giving my 

honest recollection of the sentiment as I perceived it 3 years ago.
Everyone now acknowledges that Haskell's modules are the weakest part
of the language, and people are working on ways to fix that (yes,
someday I hope there will be a Haskell 2).

-Paul
---
Professor Paul Hudak
Department of Computer Science
Yale University
New Haven, CT 06520
(203) 432-4715
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

parameterisable modules, the lack thereof ...

[Stephen J Bevan]

At the risk of opening old wounds: why weren't ML/FX style modules
included in Haskell?  I can think of a number of possible reasons, but
I'm interested in the "official" reason for leaving out such an
important feature.

bevan