| > The arguments for moving to hierarchical module names were: | > | > * it makes finding modules much easier for people new to the code | > (although tools can help here). For example, Neil Mitchell said: | > <ndm> Yhc moved to heirarchical module names, and it was a fantastic | > decision | > <ndm> it makes finding modules much easier for people new to the code, | > it took me a while to do so with GHC, finding where an import | > corresponds to | > <ndm> As a beginner, starting to explore the GHC source, | > i'm strongly for it | | I second Neil on this: speaking as someone who recently learned his | way around the GHC codebase I always felt that having additional | structure to the module names would have helped me understand the | shape of the compiler.
I'm not against this, but I urge that we postpone it until after 6.10. There'll be quite a bit of settling down to do, I predict. Simon _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
