Encapsulation is essential for constructing robust software.
How could we get rid of that and claim to have a serious language?
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Christian Höner zu Siederdissen
Hi everybody,
I'd like some input on other peoples' thoughts on this. Recently, I played around with a library that uses an explicit export list. While there are reasons for having one:
- efficiencey (inlining in the module) - encapsulation
in practice, it seems to me that they are more annoying than useful. For once, it would think that ghc should produce efficient good across modules with -O / -O2 anyway. But the more important thing is, that it makes extending module functionality a pain (eg. if a constructor is not exported using (..)).
So, should I really fork a library just to be able to add a function?
Btw. there are libraries, where an explicit export list is used, that export the right amount of information. For example, in 'vector' enough is exported to allow you to extend unboxed vectors.
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users