The GHC library and hierarchical module names
simonpj at microsoft.com
Fri Aug 29 05:07:54 EDT 2008
the settling down I was thinking of is that I'm sure the exercise will promote a good deal of refactoring, moving code around etc. Does this module belong here or there? Does this function belong here or there? This takes brain cycles, and there are only 20 days until release candidate
| -----Original Message-----
| From: cvs-ghc-bounces at haskell.org [mailto:cvs-ghc-bounces at haskell.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm Wallace
| Sent: 29 August 2008 10:06
| To: cvs-ghc at haskell.org
| Subject: Re: The GHC library and hierarchical module names
| Simon Peyton-Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com> wrote:
| > I'm not against this, but I urge that we postpone it until after 6.10.
| > There'll be quite a bit of settling down to do, I predict.
| Actually, since the module namespace is one of the few extensions that
| is purely lexical, I think it is easy to guarantee that there will be no
| need for a settling down period. In the scenario where you _only_
| change the module names (i.e. not the names of exported entities to
| remove tc_ prefix etc), you either get the module names right, or it
| will fail to compile. Once it compiles, the module names must be
| That was certainly our experience in the Yhc/nhc98 codebase.
| However, the restructuring of the internal entity names (e.g. to remove
| tc_ prefixes) is an entirely different matter, and I would indeed urge
| you to leave that until after the 6.10 fork. But if you have already
| changed the module names, merging these later changes down from the HEAD
| to the 6.10 branch will be a _lot_ more straightforward than if you
| postpone both kinds of change until after the fork.
| Cvs-ghc mailing list
| Cvs-ghc at haskell.org
More information about the Cvs-ghc