Extensions to the module name system in H2020

[Daniel Cartwright]

As someone who reads documentation, I do want to see where they came from.
The source (not code, but origin) of a module is not an implementation
detail, it's a place for documentation. This naming scheme is also
consistent in its own right.

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018, 9:29 AM Wolfgang Jeltsch <wolfgang-it at jeltsch.info>
wrote:

> Am Dienstag, den 31.07.2018, 08:51 -0400 schrieb Daniel Cartwright:
>
> "There is also the situation where the package name isn’t essential and
> shouldn’t get in the way when naming modules. For example, there are a
> lot of monad transformers in the world. The `transformers` package
> implements some of them; others are added by other packages. It is good
> if the module that implements a certain kind of monad transformer has a
> name of the form `Control.Monad.Trans.⟨type-of-transformer⟩`. Having the
> package name in the module name would be like revealing an
> implementation detail."
>
> Not sure I agree that that is necessarily the case.
>
> Transformers.ExceptT
> Transformers.ReaderT
> These.ChronicleT
>
> This lets me know exactly where these transformers came from, just by
> reading the module name.
>
>
> But I don’t want to see where those transformers “came from” but that they
> are certain monad transformers. The latter is expressed by the
> *consistent* naming Control.Monad.Trans.⟨type-of-transformer⟩.
>
> All the best,
> Wolfgang
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20180731/d4076304/attachment.html>