Ian Lynagh writes: | On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 01:28:38PM +0000, Malcolm Wallace wrote: | > | > Proposal 2b: adopt a "Std." namespace for libraries that | > are common to all implementations. | > | > * There is little agreement here. Simon M, Manuel, and | > others have expressed their doubts that it is workable. | > No-one has defended the idea except me. But then Simon | > posted a hierarchy layout proposal in which "Haskell." | > seemed to take the role of "Std.". So I'm a bit | > confused. I'd like to see some more discussion about | > this. | | I think that a common prefix for the standard libraries will get to | be a pain far more than one for non standard ones, and non standard | ones are going to have a huge prefix for uniqueness anyway. The | chances are most modules will either be in . or be standard | anyway. My vote is for a user.* hierarchy with mangled e-mail | addresses as I have previously described. Do we even need to distinguish standard/other modules by their names? If the distinction is just a gentle piece of advice about portability, perhaps it could be expressed some other way (e.g. in the imports of a dummy top-level module called Standard), and each module could go straight to its own One True Preferred Path regardless of whether it's standard yet. - Tom