On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Marc Weber <marco-owe...@gmx.de> wrote: > Excerpts from David Fox's message of Fri Jun 28 04:04:59 +0200 2013: >> So you will get modules Start.A, Start.B and Start.C. If there are > > But that's very unlikly what the programmer wants. I mean I might want > Types and Funs as module names, move A,B to Types, C to Funs. > > I agree that I could reach my goal using a "merge" afterwards ?
>From what I'm reading, I don't actually agree that the goal may be reached by using a merge afterwards. I assume that split-then-merge isn't the same as identity since at very least the order of the symbols is lost. -- Felipe. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
