On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Sven Panne <sven.pa...@aedion.de> wrote:
> > 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. > Clay Shirky's points in include that this "sometimes" is more like "nearly always", and that the heart of the problem is "the" in "the position" (in a hierarchy). This problem and others discussed at http://www.shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html . I have e.g. never fully understood why "Monad" and "Applicative" are below > "Control", but "Foldable" is below "Data"... > Monoid as well. Type classes in general cut across distinctions like Control and Data, so I don't think we'll ever have a comfortable place to put them in the existing hierarchy. If anything, I recommend the top-level name "Class". - Conal
_______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
