Malcolm Wallace <Malcolm.Wallace(a)cs.york.ac.uk> writes:
> Proposal 1
> ----------
> Introduce nested namespaces for modules. The key concept here is to
> map the module namespace into a hierarchical directory-like structure.
> * The use of qualified imports becomes more verbose: for instance
[...]
> instance, either the fully-qualified or abbreviated-qualified names
> Text.Xml.Parse.element
> Parse.element
> would be accepted and have the same referent, but a partial
> qualification like
> Xml.Parse.element
> would not be accepted.
Why not?
Perhaps one could have a warning/error if there are multiple "Parse"
modules?
> * Another consequence of using the dot as the module namespace
> separator is that it steals one extremely rare construction from
> Haskell'98:
[...]
> No-one so far thinks this is any great loss, and if you really
> want to say the latter, you still can by simply inserting spaces:
> A.B . C.D
Personally, I'm not overly enthusiastic about using (.) for function
composition - but I guess e.g the degrees sign was ruled out since
it's not in (7bit) ASCII - and I think it should require spaces
anyway, in order to differentiate it from its other uses.
> Proposal 2
> ----------
> Adopt a standardised namespace layout to help those looking for or
> writing libraries, and a "Std" namespace prefix for genuinely
> standard libraries. (These are two different things.)
Sounds good!
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
