[Haskell-cafe] Re: ANNOUNCE: OpenGLRaw 1.0.0.0

[Jeff Heard]

And the one other thing is that it increases (to me) the at-a-glance
comprehensibility of the module.  If I'm reading over soemone else's
code and I want to get a feel for where s/he put things, the fully
qualified module structure and the fully qualified names in the import
statements make it easy to get a feel for the organizational structure
of the program.

That way, on first reading I don't have to go through the whole module
to figure out what was contained in Utils when I see the phrase

import Utils

or even

import qualified Utils

at the top of the module.

-- Jeff

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Jeff Heard<jefferson.r.heard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, and I don't disagree with that at all.  I just just have an
> aesthetic preference for multiply qualified library names.  Chalk it
> up to the fact that my partner's a librarian, so I'm used to putting
> things in categories, subcategories, and sub-sub-categories :-)
>
> -- Jeff
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Henning
> Thielemann<lemming at henning-thielemann.de> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Jeff Heard wrote:
>>
>>> case in point: Hieroglyph.  What's it do?  import Hieroglyph.  Is
>>> there any clue by my function names which ones belong to a library
>>> called Hieroglyph?  No.  However, import
>>> Graphics.Rendering.Hieroglyph, and I see a function somewhere in the
>>> code called "arc" or "plane" or "circle", and I know it probably goes
>>> with the rendering package.
>>
>> http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Import_modules_properly
>>
>