Ian Lynagh wrote:
Data Database Debug Graphics Haskell Network Numeric Posix Text Data Database Debug Graphics Lang Net Numeric Posix Text
Personally I prefer the latter list,
I really prefer full spellings to abbreviations - otherwise we might end up with Data DB Dbg Gr Hs Lang Net Num Posix Txt which is positively horrible. However, I could probably live with some shortening - Network to Net is common enough in everyday speech. One abbreviation I have always disliked intensely though is Lang. It just doesn't convey any clear meaning to me. Ok, so it is reasonably obvious that it is short for Language, but even then, on its own, it is an ambiguous category. Does it refer to natural languages, formal languages, programming languages, or this specific programming language? If the latter, then Haskell.Language seems clearer to me, or come to that, just Haskell. The other thing that bothers me about Lang is that I don't see the connection between many of the things proposed to go into it, and the Haskell language itself. The FFI is the best candidate, because it clearly extends the source language. Likewise, Generics and Dynamic. But why should libraries like Array, Memo, and Monad be in Lang? They don't extend the language. And of course some things /not/ currently in Lang seem to have everything to do with the language - like the Haskell source parser, abstract syntax, source pretty-printer etc. These were the reasons I proposed a hierarchy like Haskell Plus Foreign Generics Dynamic Language AbstractSyntax Parse PrettyPrint Here in my scheme, Haskell.Plus contains extensions to the language, and Haskell.Language contains utilities to manipulate the source language itself. Simon proposed Haskell.Source for the latter, which would also be a fine name, provided there were no Haskell.Lang category to confuse you. My final difficulty with the Lang category is that, if it contains extensions to the language, people will be misled into thinking that the extensions are truly a part of the language standard. After all, they are categorised in Lang! In my opinion, a clearer name is needed, to emphasise the extensional nature of some of the libraries. Regards, Malcolm