Extensions to the module name system in H2020

[Wolfgang Jeltsch]

Hi!
There are also disadvantages in having the module name beginning with
the package name.
With that system, extending subtrees of the module tree is made
impossible. In the incremental-computing package, for example, we add
incrementalization to several common data types. We do this by adding
modules like Data.Sequence.Incremental. With your approach, we would
have to change that name to something like Incremental.Sequence.
However, if someone implements some new data type in a package amazing-
type and adds incrementalization support right away, the incremental
version would be in AmazingType.Incremental. So the order of the type
name and the string Incremental would generally depend on whether a type
was implemented before or after the incremental-computing package was
created.
In addition, changing the package structure would result in changing the
module names. For example, Edward Kmett once split his category theory
package into several small packages; under your system, this would
result in massive module name changes and consequently compatibility
issues.
All in all, I think separating package names from module names is a good
idea. The distribution of modules among packages seems more like an
implementation detail to me and is a lot dependent on historical
accident. It should not pollute module naming.
All the best,
Wolfgang
Am Dienstag, den 24.07.2018, 09:12 -0400 schrieb 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
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180730/8444ca69/attachment.html>