Hi > Indeed you don't, however, the yhc compiler only cares about being able > to separate the module name so the change is sufficient for its purposes. > > To give a truely unique and unambiguous name something like > > Foo.Bar;Prelude.Eq;Foo.Bar.Baz;== > > would be necessary. This would also be a possible encoding if people > thought it was preferable.
I would have thought the best encoding would be: Foo.Bar;Foo.Bar.Baz;Prelude.Eq.== OR Prelude.Eq;Foo.Bar.Baz;Foo.Bar.== In the first the rule for extracting module names is "up to the first ; or last .", in the second its "skip all bits before ;" - and I'm leaning towards the first. I read the first as "hey, I'm located in Foo.Bar, I operate over Foo.Bar.Baz and I'm really just a type specific version of Prelude.Eq.==" Although I would be perfectly happy with 3 semi-colons - I think it is important to know and track class dictionaries at the Core level. Whatever scheme we do go with, I suggest a coreFunModule function be added which obtains the module from a function name, and assuming dictionaries are unambiguous, coreFunDictionary to split up the pieces. Thanks Neil _______________________________________________ Yhc mailing list Yhc@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/yhc
