Alastair Reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Haskell's module system provides a way for a module to merge multiple
> modules into one but provides no way to eliminate any ambiguities this
> may create. If we want to be able to use names like 'create' instead
> of 'createFont', we need to change the
> 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!
I used the module system in this way in the first version of the HGL
(http://haskell.org/graph
G'day all.
Quoting Koen Claessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think Chris Okasaki did a nice job and made a good data
> structure library proposal with Edison (years ago). It uses
> both the qualified names trick and type classes. Why nobody
> uses it (or even knows about it) is a mystery to me.
My
G'day all.
Quoting Ketil Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> One could possibly argue that the right solution is to put the
> operations in classes?
One could also argue that the right solution is first-class modules. :-)
Cheers,
Andrew Bromage
___
Haskell m
Koen Claessen wrote:
[...] Why is the naming scheme standard, described at:
http://www.haskell.org/hierarchical-modules/libraries/library-design.html
still using Haskell 1.2 naming schemes? Do people simply not
like qualified names?
I think the reason is simply that SimonM copied the relevant sec
| One could possibly argue that the right solution is to
| put the operations in classes?
The problem is that sometimes the type of an operation on a
particular data structure is not completely according to the
general structure. There might be extra restrictions on the
type arguments for examp
Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Freitag, 20. Februar 2004 10:23 schrieb Koen Claessen:
> > > http://www.haskell.org/hierarchical-modules/libraries/library-design.html
> >
> > What I mean is, instead of:
> > newIORef, writeIORef, readIORef
> >
> > We could have:
> > IORef.new,
Koen Claessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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?
One could possibly argue that the right solution is to put the
operations in classes? There has
Am Freitag, 20. Februar 2004 12:51 schrieb Bayley, Alistair:
> Excuse my ignorance, but why can't you just say:
>
> import qualified Data.Set as Set
You can do so. I knew itâI'd have missed something. ;-)
> [...]
Wolfgang
___
Haskell mailing list
[EM
Excuse my ignorance, but why can't you just say:
import qualified Data.Set as Set
> Hello,
>
> the naming scheme you mention is nice, in my opinion.
>
> Alas, it has a problem with hierarchical module names. For
> example, you
> cannot write Set.empty but have to write Data.Set.empty
> ins
Am Freitag, 20. Februar 2004 10:23 schrieb Koen Claessen:
> > 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
Koen Claessen wrote:
And instead of:
mapSet, emptySet, ...
We have:
Set.map, Set.empty, ...
This is how Chris does it in Edison.
and Daan Leijen in DData: http://www.cs.uu.nl/~daan/ddata.html
Christian
(Well, Set.map is actually missing there)
I think it's because of tradition. Originally Haskell didn't have
qualified names, only renaming. (Which, IMHO, was a wrong decision
in the original Haskell design.)
-- Lennart
Koen Claessen wrote:
| http://www.haskell.org/hierarchical-modules/libraries/library-design.html
I have always wonde
| 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 o
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Montag, 16. Februar 2004 10:05 schrieb Ketil Malde:
Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
* subsetOf :: Ord element => Set element -> Set element -> Bool
(Isn't "isSubsetOf" a better name?)
So is "isElementOf". I just said "subsetOf" to be consistent with
Am Montag, 16. Februar 2004 10:05 schrieb Ketil Malde:
> Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * subsetOf :: Ord element => Set element -> Set element -> Bool
>
> (Isn't "isSubsetOf" a better name?)
So is "isElementOf". I just said "subsetOf" to be consistent with
"elementOf". We
16 matches
Mail list logo
