[Haskell] Re: Top Level

Wolfgang Jeltsch g9ks157k at acme.softbase.org
Thu Jun 18 12:04:04 EDT 2009

Am Mittwoch, 17. Juni 2009 11:29 schrieb Anton van Straaten:
> Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> > The problem with a top-level namespace like FRP is that it is a cryptic
> > acronym: it means nothing to a novice, and may be easily confused with
> > other acronyms by an expert.  I believe top-level names should _at_the_
> > _very_least_ be minimally descriptive of the category of things that
> > live in it.
> >
> > So, I'd be fine with Control.Reactive.FRP, Control.Reactive.Yampa, etc,
> > or even just Reactive.Yampa etc.
> Besides, it hardly seems necessary to emphasize "Functional" and
> "Programming" in the Haskell context...

When we discussed where to place modules of FRP libraries in the hierarchy, it 
was argued that FRP had become a “brand”. It’s not just about programming 
reactive systems but describes a certain basic approach to it.

Best wishes,

More information about the Haskell mailing list