nVidia and ATI drivers both support GL 3.0 on Linux, although you're right that open source drivers don't. I for one welcome this package with open arms, since I'm mostly trying to implement a layer over OpenGL anyway with Hieroglyph. This'll help with the next revision of that. As for the package naming scheme, I don't mind it at all -- there are several different Graphics.Rendering packages with different backends and several Graphics.UI packages, so I think it's been fairly established. Perhaps there should be a Hackage Ontology project, though, or we should ask a librarian to look at Hackage and think about the problem and suggest a proposed standard for people to follow, then suggest to new library releasers under what set of QNames they ought to release their libraries under. This is more or less standard practice for large working groups on languages like XML and Java, and although it could be seen as a debatable practice to many, I prefer something descriptive of function in my module names, since package names so rarely are. 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. On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Felipe Lessa wrote:

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:55:23PM +0200, Krzysztof Skrzętnicki wrote:

...

On my machine I get:

$ glxinfo | grep -i version server glx version string: 1.4 client glx version string: 1.4 GLX version: 1.3 OpenGL version string: 3.0.0 NVIDIA 180.51 OpenGL shading language version string: 1.30 NVIDIA via Cg compiler

So it doesn't appear to be true.

So, open source Linux drivers won't have OpenGL 3.0 or 3.1 for at least some months :).  I don't know the internals of the graphics subsystem, but AFAIK the open source drivers use Mesa to implement the OpenGL frontend, and the current version 7.5rc3 doesn't support it yet.

FWIW, I'm using the Intel driver, version 2.7.1.

-- Felipe. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

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

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:55 AM, 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 :-)

Check out http://www.shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html .