[Haskell-cafe] Re: ANNOUNCE: OpenGLRaw 1.0.0.0

And the one other thing is that it increases (to me) the at-a-glance comprehensibility of the module. If I'm reading over soemone else's code and I want to get a feel for where s/he put things, the fully qualified module structure and the fully qualified names in the import statements make it easy to get a feel for the organizational structure of the program. That way, on first reading I don't have to go through the whole module to figure out what was contained in Utils when I see the phrase import Utils or even import qualified Utils at the top of the module. -- Jeff On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Jeff Heard wrote:

Oh, and I don't disagree with that at all.  I just just have an aesthetic preference for multiply qualified library names.  Chalk it up to the fact that my partner's a librarian, so I'm used to putting things in categories, subcategories, and sub-sub-categories :-)

-- Jeff

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Henning Thielemann wrote:

...

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Jeff Heard wrote:

...

case in point: Hieroglyph.  What's it do?  import Hieroglyph.  Is there any clue by my function names which ones belong to a library called Hieroglyph?  No.  However, import Graphics.Rendering.Hieroglyph, and I see a function somewhere in the code called "arc" or "plane" or "circle", and I know it probably goes with the rendering package.

http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Import_modules_properly