Am Freitag, 12. Juni 2009 11:24 schrieb Sven Panne: > A few final remarks: Leaving out "Graphics." completely would be a very bad > idea, the naming hierarchy should reflect the underlying conceptual > hierarchy. The only problem with hierarchies in general is that sometimes > the position in it is not very clear. I have e.g. never fully understood > why "Monad" and "Applicative" are below "Control", but "Foldable" is below > "Data"...
This is a reason for me thinking that the naming hierarchy should not reflect the underlying conceptual hierarchy (completely). I’d like to propose a more flat structure. The Yampa people and I (the Grapefruit maintainer) already agreed to introduce a top-level FRP namespace instead of putting FRP under Control or whatever. Graphics.UI is a bad choice in my opinion, since not all user interfaces are graphical (ncurses) and for those who are, it’s not so important anymore that they are (it was important in the 1980ies). So it might be good to change Graphics.UI to just UI. Then we might want to change Graphics.Rendering to just Graphics. What do others think? Best wishes, Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
