Chris Okasaki wrote:
> I've taken a look at these. I'll limit myself to just one comment:
>
> >1.1.1. Constructor names
> >
> > Empty values of type X have the name emptyX, e.g. emptySet.
>
> You've struck a pet peeve of mine. These suffixes are doing namespace
> management, avoiding name clashes between different things that you
> want to call empty. But Haskell already has a perfectly good language
> mechanism for doing this -- the module system! Why is emptyX preferable
> to X.empty? The latter convention is much more flexible.
I agree 100% with Chris. Having the type as a suffix just gives you poor
maintainability of the code. If I want to switch from FooTree to BarTree
I have to change all over the code, whereas with an `import .. as X' and
X.empty I only have to change in one place.
--
-- Lennart
