Henning Thielemann schrieb: > On Sun, 5 Apr 2009, Kalman Noel wrote: >> I'm wondering, too, if the Numeric Prelude could be organized more >> cleanly if we had a fancier module system - does someone have >> sufficient experience with, say, ML-style module systems to tell? > > Are you complaining about the organisation or about the identifiers? If > you mean the former, then what organisation do you propose?
I'm not complaining, and I'm not sure what I mean :) I may like a scheme where functions operating on a type or type class live in a module seperate from the type (class) definition, so you could import a specific module to get only, say, (Ring, (*), one, ...). But that would be too tedious in the Haskell hierarchical module system, which is why I was asking about others. > If you mean > the latter ... Many proposals about extended import facilities I saw > were complicated and could simply be avoided using the naming style I use. I'm ready to believe you that the naming style you chose is optimal within the hierarchical module system. Regards, Kalman _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
