module hierarchy (Re: [Haskell-cafe] parsec3 pre-release [important note])

Wolfgang Jeltsch g9ks157k at
Mon Feb 4 06:11:07 EST 2008

Am Samstag, 2. Februar 2008 05:53 schrieb Derek Elkins:
> I forgot to mention that the Text.Parsec modules should be preferred to
> the Text.ParserCombinators.Parsec modules as the Haddock documentation
> reveals.

I would have prefered to shorten ParserCombinators to Parsing and leave Parsec 
under the parsing category.  However, I would prefer if Parsing would move 
out of Text since parsing is not just about parsing text.  Parsec parses also 
streams other than character streams now.

Recently, there was a discussion on the Yampa mailing list about where to put 
FRP-related modules into the module hierarchy.  There was the suggestion of 
Control.FRP.  It was noted, however, that Control seems to suggest imperative 
programming while many things under Control are not restricted to that 
paradigm (like monads, for example) and others (like FRP) have nothing to do 
with imperative programming.  We finally chose to introduce a separate 
top-level module name FRP since the FRP stuff didn’t seem to really fit in 
any of the existing top-level categories.

I concluded from this discussion that the current module hierarchy is too deep 
and that it might be good to remove the current top-level layer.  So 
Parsing.Parsec, for example, or Monad.Reader.

What do you and others think?

Best wishes,

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list