{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreigflfjigfjrqwb7fziu5z7vijcihfqur74v4cjzjjjvgsmzctl3ny",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:pi6woz4d47bkuws673w2il2r/app.bsky.feed.post/3mksq5tw4rtf2"
  },
  "path": "/t/why-arent-modules-prefixed-their-package-name/14025#post_3",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-01T16:53:30.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.haskell.org",
  "tags": [
    "it has its drawbacks"
  ],
  "textContent": "superstar64:\n\n> If package `A`, depends on `B` and `B` depends on `C`, should `A` be allowed to import `C`’s modules without directly depending on `C`[?] I’m inclined to say yes because `B`’s types may not make sense without `C`’s types.\n\nIf that is the case, I expect library `B` to re-export what is needed from `C`, although it has its drawbacks.",
  "title": "Why aren't modules prefixed their package name?"
}