Hi Christian, Is there a specific library you're having trouble with? One reason library authors can prefer explicit export lists is that they can hide implementation details, which can then make it easier to change in the future without breaking the users of the library. Antoine Cc'ing the haskell-cafe On Jun 19, 2010 1:39 PM, "Christian Höner zu Siederdissen" < choener@tbi.univie.ac.at> wrote: Hi everybody, I'd like some input on other peoples' thoughts on this. Recently, I played around with a library that uses an explicit export list. While there are reasons for having one: - efficiencey (inlining in the module) - encapsulation in practice, it seems to me that they are more annoying than useful. For once, it would think that ghc should produce efficient good across modules with -O / -O2 anyway. But the more important thing is, that it makes extending module functionality a pain (eg. if a constructor is not exported using (..)). So, should I really fork a library just to be able to add a function? Btw. there are libraries, where an explicit export list is used, that export the right amount of information. For example, in 'vector' enough is exported to allow you to extend unboxed vectors. _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users