Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Design your modules for qualified import

On Jun 6, 2008, at 12:54 PM, Henning Thielemann wrote:

On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Achim Schneider wrote:

...

Jan-Willem Maessen wrote:

...

There's one caveat: Always choose descriptive names, even if you are assuming that you will usually use a qualified import. The following are wonderful names, even though they conflict with the prelude: null filter map lookup

import Prelude as P

Precisely. If I import the prelude qualified and your library unqualified, is my code readable? I should hope it is. And if the library used the overlapping names reasonably, you shouldn't be left wondering when you read my code.

...

...

The following are terrible names: T C

Not to mention that this usage is hideously confusing while looking at the haddock docs.

But that will be resolved when Haddock can show identifiers with qualifications.

I specifically *didn't* bring up the Haddock issue, because I think it's a side show. Fundamentally, these types are neither clear nor descriptive. Their treatment by one or another documentation tool is, at some level, beside the point.

It's good to have fine grained modules, because you can more easily exchange the parts you want different from the standard way. For reducing import lists for simple songs I think we could provide wrapper modules.

Make your modules as small as you like; small modules are great. But keep things readable, please! -Jan

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe