Re: cvs commit: hugs98/dotnet License.net hugs98/dotnet/doc dotnet-lib.html dotnet.html examples.html hugs98/dotnet/examples/basic Env.hs Http.hs Mail.hs hugs98/dotnet/lib DotNet.hs hugs98/dotnet/lib/Syste m Array.hs ...

12 Mar 2003


      On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:36:17AM -0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
...
...
Just to clarify -- this is a separate toplevel namespace
(mirroring the .NET Framework). Should conflicts become
an issue a prefix will be added.
In what way is it a separate namespace?  I haven't looked too closely,
but it appears from the source and documentation that these libraries
occupy the same namespace as Haskell modules, which means they overlap
the existing hierarchy.  Is that not the case?
I can understand the desire to mirror exactly the existing .NET
hierarchy, but I concur with Malcolm that the .NET base classes should
really be placed under a prefix in the Haskell hierarchy.
System.DotNet is fine, but I wouldn't object to taking the top-level
DotNet name either.
Placing everything under DotNet seems the most reasonable way of mirroring
an external framework.  Wouldn't this be the ideal time to do it?

Re: cvs commit: hugs98/dotnet License.net hugs98/dotnet/doc dotnet-lib.html dotnet.html examples.html hugs98/dotnet/examples/basic Env.hs Http.hs Mail.hs hugs98/dotnet/lib DotNet.hs hugs98/dotnet/lib/Syste m Array.hs ...

Ross Paterson