Heirarchical name space allocation

Simon Marlow simonmar at microsoft.com
Wed Mar 31 09:24:54 EST 2004

> On Tuesday 30 Mar 2004 10:19 am, Simon Marlow wrote:
> > The idea is that community self-organisation replaces strict
> > central registration of library names.  I think this is an 
> improvement,
> > but perhaps it's a cop out.  What do others think?
> I think there should be some concensus about the overall 
> structure of the
> hierarchy, and that should be documented somewhere (so 
> developers don't go
> and reinvent their own slightly different names for concepts which are
> already covered). Perhaps it would suffice to just do this for the top
> level classifications.
> In my case I have a pretty complete binding to SDL which I 
> was thinking
> of tidying up and releasing for other Haskellers. I call it HSDL :-)
> But should it go in the Graphics Heirarchy, if so where? 
> Graphics.HSDL?
> SDL also covers other functionality (like audio) so I was 
> thinking of calling
> it Multimedia.HSDL, but at present there's no Multimedia top 
> level AFAIK (but
> then how would I know anyway?). Perhaps someone's already 
> using Multi_Media 
> instead? Or maybe my binding isn't necessarily unique, so perhaps
> Multimedia.SDL.HSDL? SDL also has quite few bolt on extras too which
> other people might write bindings for.

There's a kind of "design document" for the hierarchy, which is
currently in CVS: fptools/libraries/doc/lib-hierarchy.html.  It's also


As we agree on locations for libraries on this list, I've been putting
them in the document.  Not all the libraries exist yet - this is just a
place to put the design of the hierarchy.

Multimedia.SDL sounds ok to me.


More information about the Libraries mailing list