Iavor Diatchki writes:

hmm... what should i do? implement 50 libraries using the broken system just to illustrate that it is broken?

Complaining doesn't achieve anything. May I suggest that proposing a solution, getting agreement from folks on this list, writing it up and implementing it are much more productive things to be doing. It's about time we had a proper Haskell 98 addendum for the hierarchical module extension: I'll split out what's in the current document into an addendum later today, and put it in CVS along with the FFI addendum so we have somewhere to record the outcome of the dicussion. Now, there are two separate issues here. 1) Relative imports. I don't see any problem with this at all, beyond choosing a syntax. 2) Not specifying the full module name in the module source. Several people have asked for (2), but the reason we have held off so far is because it makes a fundamental change to the language, namely that The meaning of a module would not be completely specified by its source code. The current design has this rather nice property, and it means the Haskell Report can avoid talking about filesystems or any other way to specify the full module name for a module. I'm sure this argument came up recently on the libraries list, so I won't say any more about it now. That's not to say it isn't possible to find a solution, but we should bear in mind this property before adopting any design that requires the filesystem to play a part in specifying the name of a module. Cheers, Simon