duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk
Wed Jun 29 15:00:46 EDT 2005
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 21:43 -0700, Frederik Eaton wrote:
> I like your proposal and I think that some form of it should be
> implemented. Here is the section of my original post where I talk
> about it:
> > One further thing, there have been proposals to simplify the importing
> > of collections of modules from a certain point in the namespace, etc.
> > I hope it is realized that they are independent from my proposal. They
> > would not be very useful in implementing my proposal, at least I think
> > any such solution would be far from optimal; and vice-versa. Modules
> > and packages are quite distinct constructs, modules are needed for
> > namespace partitioning and packages are needed to delineate
> > administrative boundaries and sources of change. Both are necessary
> > and both deserve special consideration in the ongoing design of
> > Haskell.
> I still feel this way.
> Obviously there is some overlap in functionality but unless you want
> to either bind what's normally under Graphics.UI.Gtk at the namespace
> root everywhere in the project, or mount the library at some sort of
> short prefix like Gtk and use Gtk.Button.label everywhere - and
> neither of these is really suitable - one can't use package mounting
> to implement your proposed feature.
Yes, this is what we would like do. That is allow the user to import the
whole collection of Gtk modules with either a short prefix "Gtk" or no
prefix so that in their code they can use "Gtk.Button.label" or just
"Button.label" rather than us having to export the ugly "buttonLabel".
More information about the Libraries