2011/5/27 Simon Marlow <[email protected]>: > On 23/05/2011 13:52, David Waern wrote: >> >> 2011/5/23 Simon Marlow<[email protected]>: >>> >>> This is the way it's defined in Haskell - a 'module' export expands to >>> all >>> those names in scope qualified with that module name. There might be >>> several different modules imported with that name, and the 'module' >>> export >>> would export the contents of all of them. So I'm afraid you have to >>> traverse the whole of the scope. >> >> Aha. I suspected I didn't know the full story. Thanks for claring it up. >> >>> I suspect we don't do this properly in Haddock, since the documentation >>> always contains just a link to the exported module, right? >> >> Yes, it contains a link if the exported module is not hidden, >> otherwise we inline all the export items of the module. There are >> several things related to module exports that we do wrong currently. >> >> So I propose we should do this: >> >> There are two different behaviours: >> >> 1) We emit a link (under the original module name), if: >> >> * The module name is used to fully import exactly one non-hidden module. > > Fully *export*, you mean?
Yes, sorry. >> 2) We inline all imported export items from the module(s), if: > > (2) applies in all the cases that (1) doesn't, right? We can list those > cases, but the code doesn't need to check for them explicitly, checking the > condition for (1) is enough. Yep, exactly. I realized that after sending the mail. :-) David _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
