Tillmann Rendel <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Claus, > > thanks for your elaborations. I'm still not convinced that a common > name (e.g. TT :. Tr :. Tu :. Te) is a better interface than a common > import (e.g. TypeLevel.Bool.True). In both cases, the authors of all > modules have to actively collaborate, either to define common names, > or to define common imports. > > But I begin to see how type-level atoms could help to, e.g., > implement more advanced module system as type-level embedded DSLs in > Haskell. > > > Standard ML's answer to that kind of issue is type sharing. > > Does type sharing help with making modules retroactively compatible? >
map (\i -> rot13 i) import Foo -- (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting, performance and/or quoting of this signature prohibited. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
