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 ...

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. Cheers, Simon
--sigbjorn
----- Original Message ----- From: "Malcolm Wallace"
To: Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 03:30 Subject: 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 ... Sigbjorn Finne
writes: This commit adds interop support for the .NET platform.
Looks interesting!
However, just one minor point:
dotnet/lib DotNet.hs dotnet/lib/System Array.hs Console.hs DateTime.hs Enum.hs MarshalByRefObject.hs Object.hs ObjectTy.hs String.hs StringTy.hs Type.hs TypeCode.hs TypeTy.hs ValueType.hs Xml.hs dotnet/lib/System/Collections IEnumerator.hs dotnet/lib/System/IO Directory.hs DirectoryInfo.hs dotnet/lib/System/Xml XmlAttributeCollection.hs XmlNameTable.hs XmlNamedNodeMap.hs XmlNode.hs XmlNodeTy.hs XmlReader.hs
These hierarchical names look rather strange. Why "System" as a base dir? Wouldn't System.DotNet be perhaps more reasonable, ala System.Posix for instance?
Also, for example, how do these submodules compare with the more "obvious" locations:
System.Array Data.Array System.String Data.String System.Xml Text.XML
although, since they are .NET-specific, perhaps they belong down another level, e.g.
System.DotNet.Text.XML
Regards, Malcolm _______________________________________________ Cvs-hugs mailing list Cvs-hugs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-hugs
_______________________________________________ Cvs-hugs mailing list Cvs-hugs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-hugs

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?

Simon Marlow wrote:
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.
Ross Paterson
Placing everything under DotNet seems the most reasonable way of mirroring an external framework. Wouldn't this be the ideal time to do it?
I concur. Please don't overlap the standard namespace with platform-specific modules. Placing it all under DotNet (or System.DotNet by comparison with System.Posix) would be sensible, and if it is going to be released soon, the change will be easier before than after. Regards, Malcolm

On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:42:32AM +0000, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
Ross Paterson
writes: Placing everything under DotNet seems the most reasonable way of mirroring an external framework. Wouldn't this be the ideal time to do it?
I concur. Please don't overlap the standard namespace with platform-specific modules. Placing it all under DotNet (or System.DotNet by comparison with System.Posix) would be sensible, and if it is going to be released soon, the change will be easier before than after.
I'm not sure about the analogy with System.Posix -- that is just system stuff, while .NET is a complete hierarchy.
participants (3)
-
Malcolm Wallace
-
Ross Paterson
-
Simon Marlow