> Are there any strong opinions against creating a new ForSyDe root name?

I'd prefer more discussion about when to make new root names, when to wedge things into the existing hierarchy, and when to create new root names, under which to add projects ( e.g. DSEL).

I often have trouble figuring out where to put things in the hierarchy.  For instance, type classes cut across classifications like Data vs Control.  That cross-cutting is what makes them so powerful.  For TV, I made a new "Interface" root name.  It overlaps with Graphics.UI but is more general.  For DeepArrow, I used Control.Arrow.DeepArrow, although it's not about "control" (just as monads or arrows are not about control).

I have doubts about whether module hierarchy is workable in general.  Maybe we could come up with something better.

  - Conal

On Nov 14, 2007 3:32 PM, Alfonso Acosta <alfonso.acosta@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Bulat,

On Nov 14, 2007 2:42 PM, Bulat Ziganshin <bulat.ziganshin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 1) Use Language.ForSyDe
>
> for me seems most appropriate, unless you will invent some other root
> for DSELs.

Well, I Don't think there is such a demand for a DSEL root, so maybe
Language would be appropiate.

On the other hand, as Katil mentioned, ForSyDe is simply shorter.

Are there any strong opinions against creating a new ForSyDe root name?

> btw, isn't it better to rename lib into just Forsyde?
> Mixed-case makes reading a bit difficult

I guess I'll have to ask the original designers of ForSyDe. ForSyDe's
name falls into the case of LaTeX so they might want to keep it
unmodified, and besides, they are the ones paying for my work ;).
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries