[m-dev.] Module qualification of typeclass methods

[Simon Taylor]

On 16-Nov-2001, Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> On 12-Nov-2001, Simon Taylor <stayl at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> > When `:- export_module' or `:- include' is being used to
> > combine two modules, I think it's a bit ugly to have to
> > know how the combined module was constructed.
> 
> You're right.  This is indeed a drawback to this proposal.
> For reasons that I explained earlier, I think it is a very
> minor one, but I agree it is a drawback.

...

> I think it's better to live with the drawback mentioned,
> which I think will rarely be much of a problem in practice,
> rather than complicating the language significantly in
> order to solve it.
> 
> > I also don't like the idea of relaxing the restriction that
> > there can only be a single predicate or function with a
> > given name in a module. That every predicate or function
> > has a unique fully qualified name without looking at the
> > argument types is very useful for readability.
> 
> I hope I have convinced you on this now?

I can live with what you are proposing, but I don't much like
either proposal for dealing with name clashes. If at all possible,
I'd rather not implement `:- include' at all.

I haven't seen a good explanation why the tool which
generates the code to create a Mercury interface to .NET
libraries can't do the combination of items from multiple
assemblies into a single Mercury module itself.

Simon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-developers mailing list
Post messages to:       mercury-developers at cs.mu.oz.au
Administrative Queries: owner-mercury-developers at cs.mu.oz.au
Subscriptions:          mercury-developers-request at cs.mu.oz.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------