Fwd: Suitable new name for Dimensional library
lemming at henning-thielemann.de
Mon Oct 1 09:29:32 EDT 2007
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Björn Buckwalter wrote:
> Taken further though, if someone develops another "static" unit
> library where should they put it? An arbitrarily complex tree of
> namespaces could be built trying to distinguish libraries to
> anticipate future clashes.
> This leads me to wonder -- is it better for a library to have a more
> or less arbitrary differentiating name rather than a descriptive name?
> Examples are 'Text.ParserCombinators.Parsec', 'Text.Parsers.Frisby'.
>> From their names it's not obvious what distinguishes them from other
> parsers in the same namespace but at least the tree is fairly flat and
> hopefully narrowed down enough to permit investigating each
> alternative. In the units case I imagine
> 'Numeric.Units.SomethingArbitrary' would be appropriate.
Indeed, someone might implement static unit checking by a different
approach. We cannot predict this. So actually it seems to be better to use
an arbitrary differentiating name, say
Using module names which describe only the module function might work if
there is consensus on its relevance and its API. That is, only for very
basic modules of a 'standard library'.
More information about the Libraries