Hi, Am Donnerstag, dem 08.12.2022 um 10:43 +0300 schrieb Vladislav Zavialov:
#281 also modifies ExplicitNamespaces to enable inline "type" qualifiers in expressions. Do you want a separate extension for that also?
ah, I knew we had that somewhere! Thanks for reminding me! So with #281, I can use inline `type` everywhere where I refer to a name? Or only in expressions? Reading the spec I can only use them in expressions – why not in types? And is there no dual use-case to refer to data in types, e.g. with promoted types? My current gut feeling is that there could be a simple unified “explicit namespace qualifier” that I can use essentially everywhere when I want to be explicit which Foo I mean – expressions, types, import lists, export lists, INLINE pragmas. ExplicitNamespaces sounds like the natural name for that extensions, and nicely extends it. I am unsure if it is wise to extend ExplicitNamespaces that way and at the same time advocate for its inclusion in GHC20xx. This depends a bit on how bold we want to be with GHC20xx. A conservative approach is to find a new name for the “comprehensive” extension. I expect that extension would then subsume the changes in #281. The extension to imports in #270 has a slightly different feel to it – you are not qualifying a name here, but you are really filtering all imported names. I think putting that into its own extension makes sense for two reasons: * It decouples these discussions for now. * It may be that -XNamespacedImport turns out to be not that useful when instead you can disambiguate at the occurrence or in an explicit import list using (comprehensive) ExplicitNamespaces, and one possible future may be that that style will be more common. Then we may want to make one, but not the other, the default. Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/