Henning Thielemann schrieb:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009, Kalman Noel wrote:
I'm wondering, too, if the Numeric Prelude could be organized more cleanly if we had a fancier module system - does someone have sufficient experience with, say, ML-style module systems to tell?
Are you complaining about the organisation or about the identifiers? If you mean the former, then what organisation do you propose?
I'm not complaining, and I'm not sure what I mean :) I may like a scheme where functions operating on a type or type class live in a module seperate from the type (class) definition, so you could import a specific module to get only, say, (Ring, (*), one, ...). But that would be too tedious in the Haskell hierarchical module system, which is why I was asking about others.
If you mean the latter ... Many proposals about extended import facilities I saw were complicated and could simply be avoided using the naming style I use.
I'm ready to believe you that the naming style you chose is optimal within the hierarchical module system. Regards, Kalman