Cale Gibbard wrote: > There was a great related idea on #haskell the other day: Make > explicit qualification unnecessary whenever there is a *unique* > choice of module qualifications from those imported which would make > the expression typecheck. Ambiguities would still need to be > qualified, but I feel that this would eliminate 99% of all ugly > qualified names from code. It would be especially good in the case of > infix operators, which as far as I know, nobody actually enjoys > qualifying explicitly. > [...] > What do people think of this idea? Personally, it really annoys me > whenever I'm forced to give explicit module qualifications, and I > think this would really help. It would also subsume the > DisambiguateRecordFields extension rather handily.
I think this idea would severely damage compositionality. One example of this is that it would make it substantially less likely that subexpressions could be abstracted into a separate declaration without giving a type signature to fix the type of the new declaration. Ganesh =============================================================================== Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html =============================================================================== _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe