Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
So instead of just taking this simple solution, the wiki proposal is
instead destroying the beauty of the per-package namespace idea by
incorporating into it the existing shared namespaces with their
attendant problems, instead of just letting the existing messy
system die a natural death through the syntactic isolation I
proposed.
Brian,
I think your proposal may be clearer to you than to everyone else.
It's always hard to reconstruct a detailed proposal by reading long
email threads.
Suggestion: if you feel strongly about this, why not start a Wiki page
(you can link to it from the current one) to describe the design you
propose, at a comparable level of detail?
Incidentally, compatibility with Cabal is a significant goal.
Hi Simon -
Actually re-reading my post I realised I may have sounded a bit negative
about the hard work you'd done to collate the various responses to form the
wiki proposal - my apologies.
I've followed your suggestion and made a separate page at
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/GhcPackagesAlternativeProposal
(linked from the bottom of the existing page)which will hopefully make my
ideas a lot clearer. I've also changed my proposed syntax so that it is 100%
backwards compatible (no new keywords) with the existing module system and
language (and existing package naming rules).
Regards, Brian.
--
Logic empowers us and Love gives us purpose.
Yet still phantoms restless for eras long past,
congealed in the present in unthought forms,
strive mightily unseen to destroy us.
http://www.metamilk.com
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
