[Haskell-cafe] coding style vs. foreign interfaces
Brandon S Allbery KF8NH
allbery.b at gmail.com
Tue Feb 8 01:08:44 CET 2011
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 2/7/11 12:36 , Donn Cave wrote:
> I don't know the OpenGL example, but I gather you're talking about
> an API that's different in a practical way, not just a thin layer
> with the names spelled differently. In that case, assuming that
> it really is more Haskell-functional-etc, vive la difference! No
> one would argue with this, I think.
Usually the low level one is merely a thin layer, whereas the high level one
is more than just Haskell conventions but a proper Haskell-style API, using
e.g. monads instead of opaque state blobs.
> helpfully reveals the actual POSIX 1003.1 function names, but
> try for example to figure out what has become of the the fairly
> commonly used "ICANON" flag, without looking at the source.
> If you're hoping that in the course of time a significantly
> functionally designed API will come along for any of these things,
> note that names it might have used are already taken.
+1. The stuff that's a thin wrapper, such as System.Posix.*, should keep
names as close to the API it's mirroring as possible; if you want to rename
them, do it in the context of an actual Haskell API.
brandon s. allbery [linux,solaris,freebsd,perl] allbery.b at gmail.com
system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] kf8nh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Haskell-Cafe