On 20 April 2005 11:56, S. Alexander Jacobson wrote:
Lastly, I think you proposal to add package naes to the source is seriously at odds with your commment from earlier:
I'm not proposing to add package names to source code. The rest of your post was based on this misconception, so I won't answer it. I realise my description of the idea wasn't as complete as it could have been. I'll try to describe the idea more precisely. (note this isn't a proposal as such). - source code continues to use module *names* only. - define module *identifier* as (package name, module name) pair - in the context of each module's source, there is assumed to be a mapping from module name to module identifier established by some external mechanism. The "external mechanism" referred to here could be GHC's -package flags, or Cabal's build-depends, for example. For the purposes of the language definition, it doesn't matter.
Also, the Haskell module hierarchy is supposed to reflect functionality, whereas package names are purely administrative. This is a reason for not including package names in source code.
http://www.haskell.org//pipermail/libraries/2005-April/003513.html
My position on this has (still) not changed! Cheers, Simon