Re: [Haskell-cafe] Proposal: Pragma EXPORT

2013-09-17 Thread Evan Laforge
It also makes actual definitions cleaner/shorter rather than cluttering them with extra annotations (either PRAGMAs or public/private markers), though this is not that big of a deal. It's true, though you could get it pretty short, e.g. default private and leading ! for public. Go uses

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Proposal: Pragma EXPORT

2013-09-17 Thread Ben Gamari
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com writes: On 17 September 2013 09:35, Evan Laforge qdun...@gmail.com wrote: snip None of this is a big deal, but I'm curious about other's opinions on it. Are there strengths to the separate export list that I'm missing? I do like the actual

[Haskell-cafe] Proposal: Pragma EXPORT

2013-09-16 Thread Wvv
I suggest to add instead of (or with) export section Pragma EXPORT: We have 3 values: public, abstract and private. Data(with newtypes and types,..) could be public, like `Data(...)` or abstract `Data`. Other cases abstract = public. {-# EXPORT smth #-} pragma is valid till next {-# EXPORT smth

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Proposal: Pragma EXPORT

2013-09-16 Thread Evan Laforge
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Wvv vite...@rambler.ru wrote: I suggest to add instead of (or with) export section Pragma EXPORT: I doubt this has much chance, since haskell already made its choice here a long time ago (and even if it were still up for discussion, PRAGMA isn't right for it),

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Proposal: Pragma EXPORT

2013-09-16 Thread Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
On 17 September 2013 09:35, Evan Laforge qdun...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Wvv vite...@rambler.ru wrote: I suggest to add instead of (or with) export section Pragma EXPORT: I doubt this has much chance, since haskell already made its choice here a long time ago (and