15 Jul
2005
15 Jul
'05
5:56 a.m.
On 15 July 2005 09:48, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
2) enshrining one-type-per-module in the naming convention is not IMO justified, and may prove limiting;
Other languages like Modula-3 and Oberon do it with great success. The limit in Haskell is that most compilers don't conform to the Haskell 98 report which allows mutually recursive modules. But I think the compilers should allow them instead of forcing users to put many type and class definitions into one module.
I hope you weren't including GHC in "most compilers" :-) GHC's implementation of mutually recursive modules is conformant with Haskell 98 (see Section 5.7). Cheers, Simon