15 Jul
2013
15 Jul
'13
2:28 p.m.
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
A question related to this:
Is it possible for such an "API package" to actually explicitly specify type signatures of its re-exports, perhaps using abstract types where no particular implementation would be dictated?
I think this can be achieved by writing things like: module Data.List (map) where import qualified Base.List as List map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b] map = List.map However it means, that the implementing package must use other module names than 'base'. And you lose the Haddock comment. But maybe the Haddock comment should be attached to Data.List anyway, instead of GHC.List? I don't know.