Yes. As I said, "I could re-define the exported definitions in B as identities of those in A (easy for functions, probably more cumbersome for data constructors or classes)."

For example, if B needs to re-export a record with fields and data constructors, then you can't export those with a type synonym. You can re-define and export the data constructor and the record fields as functions, but then you can't do pattern matching or use record syntax on them anymore.

More generally, the question remains. Should it work the way it does?

Cheers,

Ivan

On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 at 21:40, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> wrote:

> On 14 Aug 2021, at 9:22 pm, Ivan Perez <ivanperezdominguez@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have a library that is exposing too much. As a minimal example, say the library contains:
> - Module A, which defines several functions and types.
> - Module B, which exports specific definitions from module A and has none of its own.

The simplest solution might be:

module B (somefunction)

import qualified A

somefunction = A.somefunction

This creates a *new* function in B, which is not deprecated, without
re-exporting anything from A.

--
Viktor.

_______________________________________________
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.