| http://www.haskell.org/hierarchical-modules/libraries/library-design.html
I have always wondered why the module system is not used at all in these conventions. I mean, the function names seem to come straight from the Haskell 1.2 days when there was no module system! What I mean is, instead of: newIORef, writeIORef, readIORef We could have: IORef.new, IORef.write, IORef.read (Or: new, write, read if all we use are IORefs.) And instead of: mapSet, emptySet, ... We have: Set.map, Set.empty, ... This is how Chris does it in Edison. Why isn't this used more? /Koen -- Koen Claessen http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~koen/ Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
