On 2008 Aug 16, at 13:22, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Yeah, as I said, it's not immediately obvious exactly what the best solution is. Maybe we just need to get everybody to come up with more inventive names than just "hashtable" or "binary". (E.g., We have several parsers already, but they all have distinctive names that are unlikely to clash. Maybe we just need to do that for everything? IDK.)
The names should really be more descriptive. What makes hashtable A different/distinct from hashtable B? What's so special about new- binary?
-- brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] [EMAIL PROTECTED] system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] [EMAIL PROTECTED] electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university KF8NH _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
