Summary of progress

Tom Pledger
Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:24:40 +1300

Ian Lynagh writes:
 | On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 01:28:38PM +0000, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
 | > 
 | > Proposal 2b: adopt a "Std." namespace for libraries that
 | >              are common to all implementations.
 | > 
 | >   * There is little agreement here.  Simon M, Manuel, and
 | >     others have expressed their doubts that it is workable.
 | >     No-one has defended the idea except me.  But then Simon
 | >     posted a hierarchy layout proposal in which "Haskell."
 | >     seemed to take the role of "Std.".  So I'm a bit
 | >     confused.  I'd like to see some more discussion about
 | >     this.
 | I think that a common prefix for the standard libraries will get to
 | be a pain far more than one for non standard ones, and non standard
 | ones are going to have a huge prefix for uniqueness anyway. The
 | chances are most modules will either be in . or be standard
 | anyway. My vote is for a user.* hierarchy with mangled e-mail
 | addresses as I have previously described.

Do we even need to distinguish standard/other modules by their names?
If the distinction is just a gentle piece of advice about portability,
perhaps it could be expressed some other way (e.g. in the imports of a
dummy top-level module called Standard), and each module could go
straight to its own One True Preferred Path regardless of whether it's
standard yet.

- Tom