Fwd: Suitable new name for Dimensional library

Henning Thielemann 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 mailing list