Re: minor errors in Haskell 2010 report

2012-08-24 Thread Simon Marlow
On 23/08/2012 17:09, Ramana Kumar wrote: M is not the current module, in which case the only way that an entity could be in scope in the current module is if it was exported by M and subsequently imported by the current module, so adding "exported by module M" is superfluous. I

Re: minor errors in Haskell 2010 report

2012-08-23 Thread Ramana Kumar
That is a good point, Iavor, about M needing to be the qualifier rather than an imported module. That should be fixed. And I now think the report is correct at the sentence I previously had trouble with. This is my problem example: module A (module M) where import M () val e :: Int val e = 0 In

Re: minor errors in Haskell 2010 report

2012-08-23 Thread Iavor Diatchki
Hello, On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Ramana Kumar wrote: > I recently read http://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/haskell2010/ and > noticed a few minor issues in Chapter 5. > Is it easy to correct them on that web page for future readers? If not, at > least this may be useful for future reports

Re: minor errors in Haskell 2010 report

2012-08-23 Thread Ramana Kumar
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Simon Marlow wrote: > On 23/08/2012 16:51, Ramana Kumar wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Simon Marlow > > wrote: >> >> The current text seems clear to me. This is the *definition* of >> what is exported by module M,

Re: minor errors in Haskell 2010 report

2012-08-23 Thread Simon Marlow
On 23/08/2012 16:51, Ramana Kumar wrote: On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Simon Marlow mailto:marlo...@gmail.com>> wrote: The current text seems clear to me. This is the *definition* of what is exported by module M, so referring to what is exported by module M within its own definit

Re: minor errors in Haskell 2010 report

2012-08-23 Thread Ramana Kumar
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Simon Marlow wrote: > The current text seems clear to me. This is the *definition* of what is > exported by module M, so referring to what is exported by module M within > its own definition would be very confusing. > To clarify, this is not the definition of w

Re: minor errors in Haskell 2010 report

2012-08-23 Thread Ramana Kumar
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Simon Marlow wrote: > On 22/08/2012 13:32, Ramana Kumar wrote: > >> Section 5.2, the first sentence of list item 5 says "The form “module M” >> names the set of all entities that are in scope with both an unqualified >> name “e” and a qualified name “M.e”." >> It

Re: minor errors in Haskell 2010 report

2012-08-23 Thread Simon Marlow
On 22/08/2012 13:32, Ramana Kumar wrote: I recently read http://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/haskell2010/ and noticed a few minor issues in Chapter 5. Is it easy to correct them on that web page for future readers? If not, at least this may be useful for future reports. Apologies if these were kn