George Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As a result, I seldom write > > "private" functions at top-level,
> > and I think the situation might be > > true for other functional
> > programmers as well.
> It isn't true for me.
Me neither. I simply disregard the whole export list during
Zhanyong Wan wrote:
> I guess the rational behind the current design is that everything by
> default should be private. However, I doubt whether it is valid: In
> Haskell the let/where clause allows us to keep auxilliary functions from
> polluting the top-level name space. As a result, I seldom
Thu, 28 Sep 2000 12:57:50 -0400, Zhanyong Wan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> I guess the rational behind the current design is that everything
> by default should be private.
I guess that users of the module are interested in its interface,
i.e. what it exports. Enumeration of things that cannot b
