I lost track of what is the issue being tackled here. What's broken with the current way of specifying exported entities? Imho it's the best system that I've seen (across all languages I know).
A lot of language chose to separate interface from implementation in source files. (eg. Ada) I find this annoying because to change a single thing you have very often to edit two files. The counter-argument is that the user of a module wants to see only the interface. However, with modern tools like haddock, one doesn't look at the source code any more to understand the interface of a module, but some specifically processed version of the sources, so this argument is void. So, again, please keep implemenation and interface as close as possible. Public modifiers permit this adequately, but they don't fit with haskell syntax style very well. The current export list being 1. very light 2. optional and 3. allowing to re-order presentation in haddock (or such a similar tool) makes it the very best solution for haskell, imho. Cheers, JP. On 2/23/06, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 22 February 2006 17:27, Malcolm Wallace wrote: > > > However, I would be > > equally happy to combine type/newtype/data into a single keyword for > > exports. > > for the record, I am in favour of tagging export specifiers with 'class' > or 'type' (using 'type' for all type constructors, in light of yours and > John's points). > > I'm not in favour of adding type signatures to export lists. It's a > half way solution to specifying interfaces, and I'd rather design it > properly from scratch. If modules are to contain interfaces, I don't > think extending the export list is the way to do it. I'd rather do > something like: > > -------------------------------------- > modules M exports > > class Eq a where > (==) :: a -> a -> Bool > > data T :: * -> * > f :: T -> Int > mkT :: Int -> T > > where -- implementation below here > > data T a = C a Int > f = ... > -------------------------------------- > > Not a proposal by any means, and I don't think that Haskell' should > tackle this, but this seems the right direction to me. > > Cheers, > Simon > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-prime mailing list > Haskell-prime@haskell.org > http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime > _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
