I don't think that it's unreasonable in general to expect people to explore
a codebase via IDE tooling. But given Haskell's current situation on that
front, I currently agree with your approach to Haskell imports/exports.
Ignat, I agree with you that explicit imports/exports involve unnecessary
typing. I call this "busywork". Explicit exports still seem valuable for
encapsulation, avoiding name clashes, and in the case of GHC they unlock a
bit more optimisation.
In this case I think that we should automate that busywork, and hopefully
the recent Haskell IDE work gives us a path in that direction.
On Fri, 18 Sep 2020, 3:54 am Olaf Klinke,
Dear Ignat,
have you seen https://wiki.haskell.org/Import_modules_properly https://wiki.haskell.org/Qualified_names
I find the arguments convincing. Even in my own packages I sometimes get lost where a certain function was imported from. When neither exports nor imports are done explicitly, you usually have only two choices: 1. search all sources (e.g. with grep -l) 2. rely on the haddock index Maybe your IDE can do that for you, but you can't expect all downstream users or all your colleagues to do the same.
-- Olaf
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to: http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.