<div dir="ltr">On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 11:04 AM, damodar kulkarni <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kdamodar2000@gmail.com" target="_blank">kdamodar2000@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
A feature being "more complicated" for the users to use or for the implementers to implement cannot be the SOLE reason </blockquote><div><br></div><div>Haskell started out with a completely flat namespace; a minimal and minimally disruptive "hierarchical" namespace was added, without any special semantics and without any intent to define such semantics.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Haskell does not have the concept of modules as containers that you seem to have; it never has had them; and there are ongoing and unresolved arguments over whether some ML-like module system should be adopted, so it's unlikely that they would be added in the absence of such resolution.</div>
<div><br></div><div>You apparently believe such a thing is implicitly part of namespaces and that we need some reason to not have automatically created them to your specifications. Could you explain where you got this notion?</div>
<div><br></div></div>-- <br>brandon s allbery <a href="mailto:allbery.b@gmail.com" target="_blank">allbery.b@gmail.com</a><br>wandering unix systems administrator (available) (412) 475-9364 vm/sms<br>
<br>
</div>