Henning,

As far as I know the only serious proponent of using qualified imports for all imports all the time is you.

Name conflicts don't affect you. We get that. We got that loud and clear virtually every time the naming of pretty much anything has arisen on this mailing list for the last few years.

That doesn't change the fact that your practice and common practice diverge.

I'm hard pressed to like an option that causes pain for the sloppy majority.

-Edward


On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Henning Thielemann <schlepptop@henning-thielemann.de> wrote:
Am 24.02.2014 18:57, schrieb Brandon Allbery:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Henning Thielemann
<schlepptop@henning-thielemann.de
<mailto:schlepptop@henning-thielemann.de>> wrote:

    Am 24.02.2014 18 <tel:24.02.2014%2018>:34, schrieb Twan van Laarhoven:


        I agree with Edward that it would be better to reserve 'zero' for
        something like an additive identity.


    Why would you want to reserve Bits.zero for an additive zero? This
    makes no sense.


There is something vaguely smelly about specifically omitting the context

 > it is an annoyingly common name to take for
such an often unqualified import.

in the original message. Yes, we're quite aware you do not consider it
legitimate. Distorting someone else's meaning to press your point is
also not legitimate.

The phrase "reserve 'zero'" suggests that once we choose Bits.zero, the identifier 'zero' is reserved once and for all and cannot be used for something different anymore. That is, this phrasing removes the option of qualified imports from the scope and thus generates the wrong context.

Can someone please, please tell me why we must avoid qualified imports at all costs? Why is this option repeatedly ignored when just saying zeroBits (+1) or zero (-1)?


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries