I am of the opinion that at least most packages should start module names
with their package name. Hackage guarantees uniqueness of package names, so
this makes sense. The whole Data/Control/Numeric thing seems arbitrary. I
would rather see Base.List, Base.Applicative, etc. This has multiple
benefits, such as non-overlapping module names by construction (assuming
the use of hackage library code), and knowing where the package came from
immediately.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 9:06 AM Marco Zocca
Hi all,
I was wondering if there are plans to extend/revisit/tidy up the module name system (https://wiki.haskell.org/Hierarchical_module_names) in view of Haskell 2020.
I'm mostly concerned with scientific/numerical applications, where I find the current state of things to be a bit chaotic (see Numeric/Numerical/Optimisation/Optimization etc.).
I would be glad to help out, and gather intelligence from the community as well via e.g. a poll.
Best, Marco (github.com/ocramz) _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries