hello, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
The "powers that be" are the compiler maintainers. If you can't persuade them (all) to adopt your proposal, then de facto it won't fly. But by-and-large, we are reasonable people. :-) You just need to be sufficiently persuasive. hmm... what should i do? implement 50 libraries using the broken system just to illustrate that it is broken?
suggestions on how to rewrite the imports/exports above more concisely are welcome.
The exports at least can be made shorter as follows.
module Control.Monad.Experimental.State (State, ,runState ,runStateS ,module T) where
import Control.Monad.Experimental.Identity import qualified Control.Monad.Experimental.StateT as S import qualified Control.Monad.Experimental.Trans as T
type State s = S.StateT s Identity
runState :: s -> State s a -> a runState s m = runIdentity (S.runState s m)
runStateS :: s -> State s a -> (a,s) runStateS s m = runIdentity (S.runStateS s m)
yes, i was also thinking of that, and it works for this particular case. i didn't like it becasue it means that i have to use qualified names everywhere in the module. and i have to do that not to avoid clashes, but so that i can write a shorter entry in the exoprt list. and don't you think the code bellow is better? not to mention that moving the library to a new localtion would be practically for free (as far as the library is concerned, the users may still have to adjust their imports)
module State (State,runState,runStateS,module Trans) where
import Identity import StateT import Trans
type State s = StateT s Identity
runState :: s -> State s a -> a runState s m = runIdentity (StateT.runState s m)
runStateS :: s -> State s a -> (a,s) runStateS s m = runIdentity (StateT.runStateS s m)
bye iavor