Dear Malcolm, I fully aggree with rationale and motivation
for your module namespace proposals.
While teaching Haskell I noticed that the more I really did
what I was preaching to the students, namely,
writing re-useable code by factoring out common patterns,
I ran into module namespace problems.
So I will start using proposal-1 the day it will be implemented for hugs.
I can't think of any arguments that would speak against the proposal.
Are there any?
At some time in the future, the proposal needs a formal definition
of how the source/interface file for the imported module is actually found.
At the moment, it is "just like you would expect,
and if you have questions, look in the Java definition"?
Well that's OK for now, but a language standard should be self-contained.
Best regards,
--
-- Johannes Waldmann ---- http://www.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/~joe/ --
-- joe(a)informatik.uni-leipzig.de -- phone/fax (+49) 341 9732 204/252 --
