Re: heap profiling

I put the simple version at http://hpaste.org/fastcgi/hpaste.fcgi/view?id=26329#a26329 This one displays much better performance with DList + Writer.Strict than List + StrictWriter so I guess it's not too surprising. However, *something* is still generating a lot of lag Some lag is to be

Modules and their explicit export lists (are an annoyance)

Hi everybody, I'd like some input on other peoples' thoughts on this. Recently, I played around with a library that uses an explicit export list. While there are reasons for having one: - efficiencey (inlining in the module) - encapsulation in practice, it seems to me that they are more

Re: Modules and their explicit export lists (are an annoyance)

Hi Christian, Is there a specific library you're having trouble with? One reason library authors can prefer explicit export lists is that they can hide implementation details, which can then make it easier to change in the future without breaking the users of the library. Antoine Cc'ing the

Re: Modules and their explicit export lists (are an annoyance)

I write an export list because I want to help Haddock. It suffices to export a constructor with (..) for this, if I intend to. How much to export is always politics, bargaining, negotiation, social dynamics. There will always be someone annoyed. Exporting too much reduces annoyance now by

Re: Modules and their explicit export lists (are an annoyance)

Hi, Christian. Here is my humble and somewhat vague thoughts. I think that export list is reasonable for commonly used and stable (ancient) library. Export list is a contract between library's author and user. Though current Haskell rules force author to have one and only one contract with all

Re: Modules and their explicit export lists (are an annoyance)

Encapsulation is essential for constructing robust software. How could we get rid of that and claim to have a serious language? On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Christian Höner zu Siederdissen choe...@tbi.univie.ac.at wrote: Hi everybody, I'd like some input on other peoples' thoughts on this.

Re: Modules and their explicit export lists (are an annoyance)

On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 08:38:52PM +0200, Christian Höner zu Siederdissen wrote: But the more important thing is, that it makes extending module functionality a pain (eg. if a constructor is not exported using (..)). I think this is another problem. Sure, without export lists you *currently*

Re: Modules and their explicit export lists (are an annoyance)

On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Felipe Lessa felipe.le...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 08:38:52PM +0200, Christian Höner zu Siederdissen wrote: But the more important thing is, that it makes extending module functionality a pain (eg. if a constructor is not exported using (..)).