Extensions to the module name system in H2020

[Daniel Cartwright]

I am of the opinion that at least most packages should start module names
with their package name. Hackage guarantees uniqueness of package names, so
this makes sense. The whole Data/Control/Numeric thing seems arbitrary. I
would rather see Base.List, Base.Applicative, etc. This has multiple
benefits, such as non-overlapping module names by construction (assuming
the use of hackage library code), and knowing where the package came from
immediately.

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 9:06 AM Marco Zocca <zocca.marco at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>  I was wondering if there are plans to extend/revisit/tidy up the
> module name system
> (https://wiki.haskell.org/Hierarchical_module_names) in view of
> Haskell 2020.
>
> I'm mostly concerned with scientific/numerical applications, where I
> find the current state of things to be a bit chaotic (see
> Numeric/Numerical/Optimisation/Optimization etc.).
>
> I would be glad to help out, and gather intelligence from the
> community as well via e.g. a poll.
>
> Best,
> Marco (github.com/ocramz)
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20180724/4c33787f/attachment.html>