Should values really depend on the order of includes? Even if you limit things to just
newChan in top level '<-' you still don't know if A.a in B the same A.a in C. Perhaps it
is enough to say A.a only exists once no matter how many times it is directly or
indirectly imported?
This strikes me as the only sane thing to do. Are there any reasons you might want C.A.a to be different than B.A.a?
In addition, perhaps we should require that modules using TWIs not have cicular dependancies. Then all init actions can be topo sorted by dependencies.
Would those restrictions solve the problems that have been floating aroud?
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
