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.
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.