On 2014-10-26 at 20:28:41 +0100, Tom Murphy wrote: [...]
> I propose that instead, we're able to simply say what we mean: > > module Foo hiding (Lockbox(MkLockbox), internalFunction) where > > I think its semantics are immediately clear to the reader. > > There's a little bit of bikeshedding that needs to happen (e.g. is "hiding > (Foo(..))" sufficient to hide the type Foo and not just its constructors), > but are people +1 on this? I've frequently wanted this behavior. I'm generally +1 on this, and I even suggested that one myself some time ago: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/2014-January/003910.html Cheers, hvr _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
