On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Simon Marlow wrote:

...

GHC's package mechanism will actually work pretty much unchanged with this scheme, I believe.

I hope that module name clashes across packages will not be fatal.

eek! I thought the reason for having a richer module namespace was so that we didn't have to allow module shadowing.

That's why it should probably be somewhat unified with the package system, not built on top of it.

I would prefer to be able to just write a full module path in the import clause, including the package name, instead of being forced to put appropriate -package options in the makefile.

This may be possible too. Cheers, Simon