I have never run into such an issue.  Typically classes tend to have the smallest possible basis of methods.  I would consider a class with more than about 10 or 15 methods (including superclasses' methods) to indicate poor design.  That is just a rough heuristic.

But you're right, it would be nice if name qualification applied to classes as well, so that we wouldn't have to worry about it at all.

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Jason Dusek <jason.dusek@gmail.com> wrote:
 What proposals are out there to address the issue of scoping
 class methods? I always feel I must be careful, when exposing
 a class definition that I want clients to be able to extend,
 that I mustn't step on the namespace with semantically
 appropriate but overly general names (e.g. 'run'). It'd be
 nice if class method names were module scoped and could be
 qualified.

--
_jsn
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe