-things it uses. It records:
-
-\begin{itemize}
-\item (a) anything reachable from its body code
-\item (b) any module exported with a @module Foo@
-\item (c) anything reachable from an exported item
-\end{itemize}
-
-Why (b)? Because if @Foo@ changes then this module's export list
-will change, so we must recompile this module at least as far as
-making a new interface file --- but in practice that means complete
-recompilation.
-
-Why (c)? Consider this:
-\begin{verbatim}
- module A( f, g ) where | module B( f ) where
- import B( f ) | f = h 3
- g = ... | h = ...
-\end{verbatim}
-
-Here, @B.f@ isn't used in A. Should we nevertheless record @B.f@ in
-@A@'s usages? Our idea is that we aren't going to touch A.hi if it is
-*identical* to what it was before. If anything about @B.f@ changes
-than anyone who imports @A@ should be recompiled in case they use
-@B.f@ (they'll get an early exit if they don't). So, if anything
-about @B.f@ changes we'd better make sure that something in A.hi
-changes, and the convenient way to do that is to record the version
-number @B.f@ in A.hi in the usage list. If B.f changes that'll force a
-complete recompiation of A, which is overkill but it's the only way to
-write a new, slightly different, A.hi.
-
-But the example is tricker. Even if @B.f@ doesn't change at all,
-@B.h@ may do so, and this change may not be reflected in @f@'s version
-number. But with -O, a module that imports A must be recompiled if
-@B.h@ changes! So A must record a dependency on @B.h@. So we treat
-the occurrence of @B.f@ in the export list *just as if* it were in the
-code of A, and thereby haul in all the stuff reachable from it.
-
-[NB: If B was compiled with -O, but A isn't, we should really *still*
-haul in all the unfoldings for B, in case the module that imports A *is*
-compiled with -O. I think this is the case.]
-
-Even if B is used at all we get a usage line for B
- import B <n> :: ... ;
-in A.hi, to record the fact that A does import B. This is used to decide