2017-02-01 22:39 GMT+01:00 Vassil Ognyanov Keremidchiev <var...@gmail.com>:
> Yes, but it could be a bit more denser without so much repetition of > "import", like: > > import Data.Text, qualified Data.Map as M, qualified Vector as V hiding > (Vector) > > i.e. the same as current situation, but allow for multiple imports for the > same word "import" comma separated. What do you think? The difference in > syntax is not so much different, than just allowing commas. > I think this is worse than separate imports, each on a separate line. The Python people have even put something like this into a PEP: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#imports This is for a very good reason: The one-liners have very few visual hints for the reader to comprehend it quickly. So even if Haskell allowed this comma-separated chain of imports, code containing it probably wouldn't survive a code review in most companies, where maintainability is the prime goal. I often see a confusion between greater expresiveness (good goal) and having to type less (largely irrelevant goal). By all means make the module system more expressive, but try to avoid "clever" things for convenience.
_______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
