Max Bolingbroke wrote:
2008/8/28 Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
The arguments for moving to hierarchical module names were:
* it makes finding modules much easier for people new to the code
(although tools can help here). For example, Neil Mitchell said:
Yhc moved to heirarchical module nam
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 10:49:43AM +1000, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
> Thomas Schilling:
> >I tried to plot GHC's dependency graph but it just became a grey/black
> >cloud. A hierarchical module space could clean things up a bit.
>
> Compilers are (in)famous for that property. Using a hierarc
te
S
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Malcolm Wallace
| Sent: 29 August 2008 10:06
| To: cvs-ghc@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: The GHC library and hierarchical module names
|
| Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > I
Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not against this, but I urge that we postpone it until after 6.10.
> There'll be quite a bit of settling down to do, I predict.
Actually, since the module namespace is one of the few extensions that
is purely lexical, I think it is easy to guar
| > The arguments for moving to hierarchical module names were:
| >
| > * it makes finding modules much easier for people new to the code
| > (although tools can help here). For example, Neil Mitchell said:
| > Yhc moved to heirarchical module names, and it was a fantastic
| >decision
|
Hi
> In fact, one drawback of using a hierarchy is that it does suggest (by way
> of module names) a hierarchy that the code does not have. For example, I
> believe there are going to be cyclic imports between files in different
> subtrees. That may make the situation actually more confusing tha
Thomas Schilling:
I tried to plot GHC's dependency graph but it just became a grey/black
cloud. A hierarchical module space could clean things up a bit.
Compilers are (in)famous for that property. Using a hierarchical
module space is not going to change anything.
In fact, one drawback of
On Aug 28, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Thomas Schilling wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Max Bolingbroke
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2008/8/28 Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
The arguments for moving to hierarchical module names were:
* it makes finding modules much easier for people new to the
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Max Bolingbroke
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/8/28 Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> The arguments for moving to hierarchical module names were:
>>
>> * it makes finding modules much easier for people new to the code
>> (although tools can help here). For exam
2008/8/28 Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The arguments for moving to hierarchical module names were:
>
> * it makes finding modules much easier for people new to the code
> (although tools can help here). For example, Neil Mitchell said:
> Yhc moved to heirarchical module names, and it was a
Hi all,
In yesterday's #ghc meeting we discussed whether the GHC library should
use hierarchical module names. We haven't reached any decisions yet, so
please let us know what you think now!
The arguments for moving to hierarchical module names were:
* it makes finding modules much easier for
11 matches
Mail list logo
