Cale Gibbard wrote:
There was a great related idea on #haskell the other day: Make explicit qualification unnecessary whenever there is a *unique* choice of module qualifications from those imported which would make the expression typecheck. Ambiguities would still need to be qualified, but I feel that this would eliminate 99% of all ugly qualified names from code. It would be especially good in the case of infix operators, which as far as I know, nobody actually enjoys qualifying explicitly.
[...]
What do people think of this idea? Personally, it really annoys me whenever I'm forced to give explicit module qualifications, and I think this would really help. It would also subsume the DisambiguateRecordFields extension rather handily.
I think this idea would severely damage compositionality. One example of this is that it would make it substantially less likely that subexpressions could be abstracted into a separate declaration without giving a type signature to fix the type of the new declaration. Ganesh =============================================================================== Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html ===============================================================================