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,
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
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
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
