> It took me about five minutes to arrive at the guess that this is about the > syntax in Cabal files for using backpack - is that right?
Oops yes, sorry for omitting this context. > What is the intent of what got implemented, anyway? Are there example use > cases? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by intent. But a common pattern in Backpack is to instantiate a library multiple time with different requirements, and if you want them all in scope you have to rename them. Right now, this has to be done one-by-one for each provided module, which can be a bit annoying. For example, let say you parametrized parsec by string type, and you wanted a bytestring version and a text version, it would be convenient to be able to unconditionally rename every Text.Parsec.* module to Text.Parsec.*.ByteString (for example) Edward Kmett described a concrete motivating use case at https://github.com/haskell/cabal/issues/7290#issuecomment-783540208? although his use case is a little difficult to understand. Edward ________________________________ From: Bryan Richter <b...@chreekat.net> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 10:06 AM To: Edward Z Yang Cc: cabal-devel@haskell.org; ekm...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Qualified module renamings It took me about five minutes to arrive at the guess that this is about the syntax in Cabal files for using backpack - is that right? What is the intent of what got implemented, anyway? Are there example use cases? Den tors 25 feb. 2021 18:14Edward Z Yang <ezy...@mit.edu<mailto:ezy...@mit.edu>> skrev: Today, using the 'mixins' field you can rename modules that come from other packages by manually expressing a renaming one-by-one. In some Backpack use cases, you may have a lot of modules that you would like to mechanically rename into some subnamespace; today, you have manually list each renaming one by one. https://github.com/haskell/cabal/pull/7303 contains an implementation of one possible way to extend mixin syntax to support qualified renaming; the implementation is very simple. The syntax here is based off of Richard Eisenberg's local modules proposal (https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/283) which supports the qualified keyword before module exports/imports which has the same effect (bring the module into scope under a sub-module namespace). However, the PR isn't really meant to be an end all to the discussion: it's just to show that it's pretty simple to implement this functionality. There are two primary axes which I am looking for feedback: * Expressivity. The current PoC implementation only permits unconditionally prefix-ing all modules that would have been brought into scope by the mixin; e.g., transforming module A to Prefix.A. Edward Kmett has expressed that in some cases, he would like it if you could implement the import as a suffix. One could also imagine allowing arbitrary string transformations. Opinions on where to draw the line for expressivity are solicited. * Syntax. The current syntax is "pkgname qualified Prefix" as it is symmetric with "pkgname hiding (A, B)" and it was simple to implement. But I am not particularly attached to this syntax, and am open to other suggestions. If we permit suffixing, a wildcard based syntax like "pkgname (* as *.Suffix)" may be preferable (though modestly more complex to specify and implement; for example, is the glob recursive over dots?). Edward Kmett has offered some other possibilities at https://github.com/haskell/cabal/issues/7290#issue-812744575? Thanks Oleg for reminding me to send this RFC to this mailing list. Cheers, Edward _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org<mailto:cabal-devel@haskell.org> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
_______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
