Am Mittwoch, 17. Juni 2009 11:29 schrieb Anton van Straaten:
Malcolm Wallace wrote:
The problem with a top-level namespace like FRP is that it is a cryptic acronym: it means nothing to a novice, and may be easily confused with other acronyms by an expert. I believe top-level names should _at_the_ _very_least_ be minimally descriptive of the category of things that live in it.
So, I'd be fine with Control.Reactive.FRP, Control.Reactive.Yampa, etc, or even just Reactive.Yampa etc.
Besides, it hardly seems necessary to emphasize "Functional" and "Programming" in the Haskell context...
When we discussed where to place modules of FRP libraries in the hierarchy, it was argued that FRP had become a “brand”. It’s not just about programming reactive systems but describes a certain basic approach to it. Best wishes, Wolfgang