20 Dec
2016
20 Dec
'16
1:42 p.m.
On 19 Dec 2016, at 22:22, William Yager wrote:
There's no good reason to force the language to adhere to something as arbitrary or restricted as a traditional filesystem hierarchy. "Modules" are a much more general concept than files on a disk, and it would be a mistake to over-specify them.
And this is exactly why Haskell, the language, leaves this open. There is no forced mapping between module names and their file storage. That is an implementation matter, left to individual compilers. In the past, there has been at least one conformant Haskell compiler which allowed multiple modules to live in the same file. Regards, Malcolm