On 27-mrt-2007, at 20:17, Nicolas Frisby wrote:
Gut feeling: the quick'n dirty script case occurs far less than the whole module case. Thus I think the benefit of automatically importing the Prelude if the module declaration is omitted should not happen: the Principle of Least Surprise out-weighs the small benefit to a rare case.
In my experience quick'n'dirty scripts tend to end up as full-blown modules later on in their life. This, to me, is a strong indication to make importing the prelude explicit. Furthermore, the arguments against explicit importing seem to be easier teaching and shorter code, as one needs much of the Prelude almost everywhere. However, Java seems to offer a reasonable datapoint in this argument: almost everything in the language needs to be explicitly imported, but for java.lang. Ofcourse, java.lang is quite annoyingly big... so a good example it is not.
Regarding type variable naming, a few of my more hardware minded friends I've asked to try Haskell often tease me about the opaque type variable names in the Prelude--it seems greater consideration of type variable names in the Prelude might behoove new users.
Good point. It would also make the Prelude sources (and Haddock docs) *much* easier to understand. Doei, Arthur. -- /\ / | arthurvl@cs.uu.nl | Work like you don't need the money /__\ / | A friend is someone with whom | Love like you have never been hurt / \/__ | you can dare to be yourself | Dance like there's nobody watching