Christian writes:
What about the module declaration? Should it be: module Text.Xml.Parser where ... or just module Parser where ... -- located in Text/Xml/Parser.hs?
The former. The reason is that a compiler needs to generate a unique linker symbol for each defined function. If the full module name is not encoded in the source file, you will need to add a commandline option to the compiler, which is the wrong way to go in my opinion. Why is e.g. Parser.f not sufficient as a unique symbol for Text.Xml.Parser.f? Well, what if you also have Text.Html.Parser.f? You really need the full thing.
I would also like to import modules using relative addresses, e.g. the file: My/Small/Test/Xml/Parser.hs contains: import .Lexer -- Relative path to the module: My.Small.Test.Xml.Lexer import ..Data -- Relative path to the module: My.Small.Test.Xml.Parser.Data import Text.ParserCombinators.HuttonMeijer -- Absolute address
I'm sorry, I don't entirely follow what the differing numbers of initial dots mean.
When the world realize that this is the XML parser, they won't accept the name and I refuse to change my implementation. The only thing that is needed to rename (an unused) module hierarchy is to move it.
If you refuse to change your implementation, someone else will change it for you! You can't have closed standards. Regards, Malcolm