Am Mittwoch, 17. Juni 2009 11:29 schrieb Anton van Straaten: > Malcolm Wallace wrote: > > The problem with a top-level namespace like FRP is that it is a cryptic > > acronym: it means nothing to a novice, and may be easily confused with > > other acronyms by an expert. I believe top-level names should _at_the_ > > _very_least_ be minimally descriptive of the category of things that > > live in it. > > > > So, I'd be fine with Control.Reactive.FRP, Control.Reactive.Yampa, etc, > > or even just Reactive.Yampa etc. > > Besides, it hardly seems necessary to emphasize "Functional" and > "Programming" in the Haskell context...
When we discussed where to place modules of FRP libraries in the hierarchy, it was argued that FRP had become a “brand”. It’s not just about programming reactive systems but describes a certain basic approach to it. Best wishes, Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
