Matthew Donadio
I am going to make the naming changes mentioned in the last few emails in this thread. The potential names can be found at
OK, I like the proposed new arrangement. Just a couple of very minor nitpicks, as always, with abbreviations. DSP Corr.hs FastConv.hs Conv.hs Cov.hs These four are confusing to me at the moment, especially because they all begin "Co..". How about using Correlate, Correspond, Convolve, Covalent, or whatever they actually stand for. The name doesn't have to be very much longer, e.g. Convolve rather than Convolution.
On question, though. Is it better to have a flat hierarchy, or a descriptive, but deep one?
In general, I agree with Ketil that deeper can be untidy and lead to false classification just for the sake of it. However, the particular case you cite, DSP Filter IIR FIR Adaptive Homomorphic is not very deep, and seems eminently descriptive. There are several kinds of filter technique, which are conveniently separated from estimation techniques, etc. So I would go with it. Regards, Malcolm