Soliciting Comments on DSP Library

[Malcolm Wallace]

Matthew Donadio <m.p.donadio@ieee.org> writes:

> I am going to make the naming changes mentioned in the last few emails
> in this thread.  The potential names can be found at
> 
> 	http://users.snip.net/~donadio/haskell/proposal.html

OK, I like the proposed new arrangement.  Just a couple of very minor
nitpicks, as always, with abbreviations.

    DSP
      Corr.hs		
      FastConv.hs
      Conv.hs
      Cov.hs

These four are confusing to me at the moment, especially because they
all begin "Co..".  How about using Correlate, Correspond, Convolve,
Covalent, or whatever they actually stand for.  The name doesn't have
to be very much longer, e.g. Convolve rather than Convolution.

> On question, though.  Is it better to have a flat hierarchy, or a
> descriptive, but deep one?

In general, I agree with Ketil that deeper can be untidy and lead to
false classification just for the sake of it.  However, the particular
case you cite,

  	DSP
  	  Filter
  	    IIR
  	    FIR
            Adaptive
            Homomorphic

is not very deep, and seems eminently descriptive.  There are several
kinds of filter technique, which are conveniently separated from
estimation techniques, etc.  So I would go with it.

Regards,
    Malcolm