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 <zocca.marco@gmail.com> wrote:

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