I would vote yes to a conversion. Hirearchical modules were present
already in ghc 5.02, so having gtk widgets in separate hierarchical
modules would be very possible for 5.02 users.
As for the changes necessary to compile on 5.04, if it's not too much
trouble, please branch the cvs or make the patch available somewhere
Martin Norb=E4ck d95mback@... =20
Kapplandsgatan 40 +46 (0)708 26 33 60 =20
S-414 78 G=D6TEBORG http://www.dtek.chalmers.se/~d95mback/
SWEDEN OpenPGP ID: 3FA8580B
From: Axel Simon <A.S<imon@uk...> - 2002-08-05 12:31:50
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 02:24:33PM +0200, Martin Norbck wrote:
> I would vote yes to a conversion. Hirearchical modules were present
> already in ghc 5.02, so having gtk widgets in separate hierarchical
> modules would be very possible for 5.02 users.
> As for the changes necessary to compile on 5.04, if it's not too much
> trouble, please branch the cvs or make the patch available somewhere
The cvs version should compile on 5.04. If it doesn't I skrew up two weeks
ago when I fixed it.
Please yell if you have any problems!
From: Axel Simon <A.S<imon@uk...> - 2002-07-26 10:08:16
On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 06:00:46PM +0900, Jens Petersen wrote:
> > Is it more convenient for the user to have each widget in its own
> > namespace? (I.e.: instead of notebookSetTabPos you say import
> > Modul.Notebook and use setTabPos)
> If Gtk (presumably you meant Mogul) exported all the
> submodules qualified it would be nicer I think. Perhaps
> both qualified and non-qualified versions could be
> So one would use "Notebook.new" instead of "notebookNew",
> etc. This seems more aesthetically pleasing to me at least:
> just keeping the C "namespacing" seems ugly. On the
> technical side I'm less sure and I don't really have any
> more arguments for or against to add.
Hm, ok. So from the two votes I assume that it might actually be a good
idea to get rid of the prefixes and use hierachical module names. I'll
wait with the conversion another two month until people have upgraded to