23 Feb
2006
23 Feb
'06
4:25 p.m.
Malcolm Wallace wrote:
An explicit interface would be useful for many purposes besides machine-checked documentation. For instance, it could be used to eliminate the hs-boot or hi-boot files used by some compilers when dealing with recursive modules.
Why *does* ghc require hs-boot files? What can be gleaned from an hs-boot file that couldn't be expressed in the corresponding hs file? For example, why doesn't ghc simply require that at least one module in a recursive group contain an explicit export list mentioning only explicitly typed symbols? -- Ben