Cale Gibbard <cgibb...@gmail.com> writes: > There was a great related idea on #haskell the other day: Make > explicit qualification unnecessary whenever there is a *unique* choice > of module qualifications from those imported which would make the > expression typecheck.
[...] > This would mean that if we had, say, Data.List, Data.Map and Data.Set > imported, and there was an occurrence of insert that happened to be > applied to a couple of values and then something known to be a Map, [...] > What do people think of this idea? Personally, it really annoys me > whenever I'm forced to give explicit module qualifications, and I > think this would really help. It would also subsume the > DisambiguateRecordFields extension rather handily. My favorite annoyance is repeated import lines for each library just to be able to use some unique identifiers unqualified, e.g.: import qualified Data.ByteString as B import Data.ByteString (ByteString) import qualified Data.Map as M import Data.Map (Map) and so on. I'm all for it, if for no other reason, then just to get rid of this. But I agree about the syntax: leave the dot out of it. -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe