Re: negative export list

2000-10-02 Thread Ketil Malde
George Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As a result, I seldom write "private" functions at top-level, and I think the situation might be true for other functional programmers as well. It isn't true for me. Me neither. I simply disregard the whole export list during development,

Re: negative export list

2000-09-29 Thread George Russell
Zhanyong Wan wrote: I guess the rational behind the current design is that everything by default should be private. However, I doubt whether it is valid: In Haskell the let/where clause allows us to keep auxilliary functions from polluting the top-level name space. As a result, I seldom

negative export list

2000-09-28 Thread Zhanyong Wan
are cursed to write a long long export list. What's more, whenever an exported name is to be deleted from the module or the module is extended with new functionalities, we have to remember to change the export list accordingly. Why not let Haskell support negative export list? Like: module Foo hiding

Re: negative export list

2000-09-28 Thread Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
Thu, 28 Sep 2000 12:57:50 -0400, Zhanyong Wan [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze: I guess the rational behind the current design is that everything by default should be private. I guess that users of the module are interested in its interface, i.e. what it exports. Enumeration of things that cannot be