I have never run into such an issue. Typically classes tend to have the smallest possible basis of methods. I would consider a class with more than about 10 or 15 methods (including superclasses' methods) to indicate poor design. That is just a rough heuristic.
But you're right, it would be nice if name qualification applied to classes as well, so that we wouldn't have to worry about it at all. On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Jason Dusek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What proposals are out there to address the issue of scoping > class methods? I always feel I must be careful, when exposing > a class definition that I want clients to be able to extend, > that I mustn't step on the namespace with semantically > appropriate but overly general names (e.g. 'run'). It'd be > nice if class method names were module scoped and could be > qualified. > > -- > _jsn > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
