relies on A. Now also C implements some different useful function and also
relies on A in its implementation. If there is only one A.a then using both B
and C features in the same code will potentally break both B and C. The only
thing that makes sense in this case is that the A imported by B is distinct
from the A imported by C.
The problem as far as I can see it is that you can create sensible examples that
require the behaviour to be one way or the other. Perhaps one solution is to allow
top level '<-' but to not allow them to be exported?
Keean.
Robert Dockins wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
