Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
As part of an attempt at resolving the FGL vs inductive-graphs naming mess, one solution that Edward Kmett and I thrashed out will involve utilising a new top-level module namespace of Graph.* instead of using Data.Graph.* as currently found in FGL.
+1.
* Not all graph-related modules are necessarily strictly about data-types, etc. (and I can't find any distinction about what defines the Data.* namespace anyway); e.g. my graphviz library currently uses Data.GraphViz.*, though it should arguably go under Graphics.* instead (it's currently under Data.* because that's how I found it when I took over maintainership).
For me, this is the most salient issue (though module clashes are certainly a pragmatic concern). The Data.* namespace seems to have become the default these days, and it seems like many of the things in there aren't data structures--- that is, they aren't data structures first and foremost. Instead, they are often auxiliary structures for supporting some specific algorithm or UI toolkit. Everybody uses data structures, but that doesn't mean everyone's code should end up in Data.*. Graphs are a salient object of study in their own right, above and beyond their status as data structures. They also blur a number of distinctions such as data vs GUI, structures vs algorithms, etc. Thus, I support the new fgl library putting things in Graph.Inductive.*. -- Live well, ~wren