On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Sven Panne <Sven.Panne@aedion.de> wrote:

A few final remarks: Leaving out "Graphics." completely would be a very bad
idea, the naming hierarchy should reflect the underlying conceptual hierarchy.
The only problem with hierarchies in general is that sometimes the position in
it is not very clear.

Clay Shirky's points in include that this "sometimes" is more like "nearly always", and that the heart of the problem is "the" in "the position" (in a hierarchy). This problem and others discussed at http://www.shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html .

I have e.g. never fully understood why "Monad" and "Applicative" are below "Control", but "Foldable" is below "Data"...

Monoid as well. Type classes in general cut across distinctions like Control and Data, so I don't think we'll ever have a comfortable place to put them in the existing hierarchy. If anything, I recommend the top-level name "Class".

- Conal