[Haskell] Re: Top Level

Ian Lynagh igloo at earth.li
Fri Jun 19 15:35:11 EDT 2009

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 06:03:03PM +0200, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 17. Juni 2009 11:05 schrieb Malcolm Wallace:
> > 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.
> Where should the modules of Conal’s reactive package be rooted then? Under 
> Control.Reactive.Reactive?

I don't know anything about the package, but if putting the modules
directly under Control.Reactive wouldn't make sense then it sounds to me
like the package name is poor (too generic).


More information about the Haskell mailing list