: Scoping rule change
Hello,
I also think that this is a good idea.
To address Manuel's nitpick, here is an example that would break if
`I` starts exporting `foo`.
module M(foo) where
import I
foo = True
To Ganesh's point: I think that this change would be useful, even if
one is willing
Nitpick: Your example actually does not lead to an error with GHC, as you
define, but do not use 'foo' in M. Names (like classes) only clash when you
look them up.
Manuel
Lennart Augustsson lenn...@augustsson.net:
It's not often that one gets the chance to change something as
fundamental as
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:
If you’re using unqualified and unrestricted
The ... foo ... in my example was intended to show that module M does
look up 'foo'.
From: Manuel M T Chakravarty [mailto:c...@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
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
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
+1 from me
I can't count the number of times I've had this bite me when writing
ByteString-like APIs that pun names from the Prelude.
On Jul 23, 2012, at 8:28 PM, Lennart Augustsson lenn...@augustsson.net wrote:
It's not often that one gets the chance to change something as
fundamental as
sounds good. will there be a shadowing warning?
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Lennart Augustsson
lenn...@augustsson.net wrote:
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
An optional shadowing warning (for the paranoid) seems reasonable.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Greg Weber g...@gregweber.info wrote:
sounds good. will there be a shadowing warning?
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Lennart Augustsson
lenn...@augustsson.net wrote:
It's not often that
