**Replying to comment:24:**
I suppose this is a possibility, although it seems to be me that we should rather try to introduce a mechanism to allow the user to state explicitly what they mean. That is: the import is known to be redundant but added for compatibility's sake. This could either be a general mechanism (e.g. wiki:Design/LocalWarningPragmas) or something more specifically designed to address import redundancy. (e.g. a `{-# USED #-}`
#13064: Incorrect redudant imports warning -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: phadej | Owner: (none) Type: bug | Status: new Priority: low | Milestone: 8.8.1 Component: Compiler | Version: 8.0.1 Resolution: | Keywords: Operating System: Unknown/Multiple | Architecture: Type of failure: Incorrect | Unknown/Multiple error/warning at compile-time | Test Case: Blocked By: | Blocking: Related Tickets: #15393 | Differential Rev(s): Wiki Page: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Comment (by phadej): Replying to [comment:25 bgamari]: pragma which could be attached to an import to silence the redundancy checker), We shouldn't need to go through GHC-proposal process for a bug fix. We should fix a bug, and then the interested people will either polish https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Compiler/RelaxedUnusedImpor... into a proposal, or propose some other way around (e.g. more granular warning toggles, then per-module). I'm for sure **implicitly** depend on this bug behavior for warning free builds, but I don't like it. For example: the tool `weeder` (to purge dependencies) isn't as useful now, as one might have an import which isn't necessary, but it retains the dependency. -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/13064#comment:26 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler