Before we proceed, let&#39;s make some points clear.<div><br></div><div>For example, OpenGL is currently imported via &quot;Graphics.Rendering.OpenGL&quot;. With the reasoning that &quot;Graphics.SomeModule&quot; (instead of &quot;Graphics.Drawing.SomeModule&quot;) has no problem (&quot;since we don&#39;t really look for packages based upon the module hierarchy but rather on package name, descriptions and categories on Hackage&quot;), one might say that &quot;Graphics.OpenGL&quot; is okay too.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Even just &quot;OpenGL&quot; would be fine as well with the same reasoning. We all know that &quot;OpenGL&quot; definitely means the graphics rendering library, and nobody is likely to use such a module name for something else. So let&#39;s rename it from &quot;Graphics.Rendering.OpenGL&quot; to &quot;OpenGL&quot;. Why use unwieldy &quot;Graphics.Rendering.OpenGL&quot; where we can just, &quot;import OpenGL&quot;?</div>
<div><br></div><div>So the question is: Do you agree that &quot;Graphics.Rendering.OpenGL&quot; actually should have been &quot;Graphics.OpenGL&quot; (or just OpenGL) for wieldiness? If you don&#39;t, what is your reason? I would like to know.</div>
<div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:ivan.miljenovic@gmail.com">ivan.miljenovic@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">I fail to see a reason for this (well, I can see why it might be</div>
desirable from an hierarchical point of view, but not how it will help<br>
from a usage point of view since we don&#39;t really look for packages<br>
based upon the module hierarchy but rather on package name,<br>
descriptions and categories on Hackage).<font color="#888888"><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div>